s 


University  Library 
University  of  California  •  Berkeley 


POLYGAMY  AND  CITIZENSHIP 


IN 


CHURCH  AND  STATE 


BY 


SAMUEL  SPAHR   LAWS,  D.  D.,  LL.  D. 


r$v  iaurov  yovalica.    ty£rw,    fca\    i/caffTq     rov     "dtov    a 
. — Let  each  man  have  his  own  wife,  and  let  each  woman  have 

her  own  husband. 

I  Corinthians  vii :  2. 


WASHINGTON,   I>.   C. 

JUDD  &   DBTWEILER   (INC.),    PRINTERS 
I906 


POLYGAMY  AND  CITIZENSHIP 


IN 


CHURCH  AND  STATE 


BY 


SAMUEL   SPAHR  [LAWS,]  D.  D.,  LL  D. 


"EicaffTo$  .  T7]y    ifwroo  yuvai/ca    i%£rw,    Kut    iKdffTq     rov     tdtov    avdpa 

^^r«>. — Let  each  man  have  his  own  wife,  and  let  each  woman  have 

her  own,  husband. 

I  Corinthians  vii :  2. 


WASHINGTON,    P.    C. 

ltrni>  &  UKTWKILKR  (INC.),  PRINTERS 
1906 


Notice:  By  an  oversight  the  first  fifty  copies  of  this  pam- 
phlet were  struck  off  and  circulated  without  Chapter  XVII  of 
this  issue.  The  Conclusion  is  now  Chapter  XVIII. 


A  FOREWORD. 

A    SUMMATION    OF    THE    ARGUMENT. 

If  marriage  is  ordained  of  God,  it  must  either  be  between 
one  man  and  one  woman  or  between  more  than  two  of  oppo- 
site sex  at  the  same  time.  The  positive  teaching  of  the  Bible 
is  that  the  conjugal  relation  was  originally  ordained  by  God 
at  man's  creation  between  two — one  man  and  one  woman. 
There  is  a  total  absence  of  any  scriptural  evidence  that  God 
ever  changed  or  superseded  this  original  ordinance  as  be- 
tween two,  and  only  two,  or  approved  of  it  between  more 
than  two  at  the  same  time.  The  Savior  did  not  claim  to  in- 
stitute a  new  ordinance,  but,  in  plain  language,  reaffirmed 
the  original  ordinance  of  monogamy  as  still  in  force,  and  as 
the  law  of  his  kingdom.  He  said  to  his  questioners :  "Have 
ye  not  read  about  the  creation  of  man  and  woman,  as  male 
and  female,  and  that  for  this  cause  a  man  shall  leave  father 
and  mother,  and  cleave  to  his  wife,  [not  wives],  and  the  two 
shall  become  one  flesh?"  (Matt,  xix:  4,  5.)  From  the  nature 
of  this  disjunctive  of  alternative  proposition,  which  the  case 
fully  warrants,  the  affirmation  of  the  monogamous  predicate 
is  a  thus  saith  the  Lord  in  denial  of  the  polygamous  alterna- 
tive. 

This  is  explicit  and  irreversible;  and  most  positively  there 
is  no  reversal  of  this  alternative  in  the  Bible;  nor  can  cir- 
cumstances change  it.  It  is  not  a  case  of  expediency  de- 
pendent on  circumstances,  but  of  inflexible  principle  founded 
on  man's  constitution.  There  is  a  total  absence  of  any  evi- 
dence that  God  ever  superseded  or  suspended  the  conjugal 

(3) 


ordination  for  the  race  between  the  two  at  creation,  which 
Christ  so  unequivocally  reaffirmed  and  re-established.  We 
shall  see  that  natural  reason  and  the  providentially  equal 
birth  of  the  sexes  abundantly  confirm  and  sustain  this  Bible 
doctrine. 

The  proof  or  disproof  of  any  proposition  simply  consists 
in  the  marshaling  of  the  evidence  in  its  support  or  refuta- 
tion. The  proof,  in  reasonable  quantity  and  quality,  will  be 
adduced  in  this  essay  in  refutation  of  the  claim  that  there 
was  polygamy  in  the  apostolic  church,  or  that  it  was  ap- 
proved anywhere  or  at  any  time  in  the  Bible  by  divine  sanc- 
tion. 

The  attempt  is  sometimes  made  to  discredit  the  validity  of 
A  negative  argument;  but  it  is  erroneous  and  misleading. 
This  is  fallacious.  The  thoughtful  and  intelligent  reader 
will  recall  that  of  the  nineteen  valid  forms  of  the  syllogism 
in  the  Aristotelic  system  of  logic,  thirteen  are  negative.  All 
depends  on  the  evidence.  And  it  may  be  fairly  submitted 
whether  the  unfitness  of  polygamists  for  citizenship  in  the 
church  of  Christ  has  not  in  this  essay  been  made  sufficient^ 
evident  by  a  reasonable  array  of  progf  or  evidence.  The 
legislatures  and  secular  courts  have  settled  that  for  the  civil- 
ized state;  and  ecclesiastical  courts  should  even  more  surely 
settle  it  for  the  church.  May  heaven  so  order!  If  polyg- 
amy is  an  outcast  condition  and  disqualifies  for  citizenship 
in  the  civilized  state,  much  more  is  this  so  in  the  Christian 
church. 

Under  the  peculiar  circumstances  incident  to  the  history 
and  fortunes  of  the  original  Chesapeake  Presbytery  Overture 
on  the  subject  of  polygamy  to  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States,  a  reasonable  al- 
lowance for  its  length  and  for  some  repetitions  in  this  dis- 


course  is  respectfully  bespoken.  The  aim  has  been,  not  a  lit- 
erary product,  but,  as  it  is  hoped  the  text  will  make  manifest, 
the  realization  of  an  earnest  and  definite  purpose  in  the  in- 
terest of  Christian  missions,  to  help  defend  and  warn  them 
against  the  foul  and  defiling  clutch  of  polygamy  and  all  its 
apologies. 

T  know  of  no  equally  serious  discussion  of  this  vexatious 
question,  the  most  important  part  of  which  is  the  Bible  argu- 
ment, a  due  attention  to  which  should  dispel  the  distracting 
confusion  of  individual  opinions  and  practice.  Indeed,  this 
serious  re-study  of  Paul's  epistles  has  wholly  dispelled  all 
doubt  about  his  teaching  on  polygamy.  The  venerable  con- 
stitution and  fundamental  law  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
overwhelmingly  sustained  by  the  word  of  God,  0.  T.  and  N. 
T.,  utterly  discountenance  the  entrusting  of  this  subject 
to  unregulated  individualism,  and  properly  subordinate  the 
entire  lay  and  official  membership  of  our  church  to  one 
course  of  action,  from  which  no  departure  is  allowable. 
Ch.  xxiv:  1:  "Marriage  is  to  be  between  one  man  and  one 
woman ;  neither  is  it  lawful  for  any  man  to  have  more  than 
one  wife,  nor  for  any  woman  to  have  more  than  one  husband 
at  the  same  time."  And  the  Larger  Catechism  enumerates, 
among  the  sins  forbidden  by  the  VII  commandment,  this 
one :  "Having  more  wives  or  husbands  than  one  at  the  same 
time"  (§139).  It  is  appropriate  to  quote  the  words  of 
I  Timothy  vi:  3,  4:  "If  any  man  teach  a  different  doctrine, 
and  consenteth  not  to  sound  words,  even  the  words  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  the  doctrine  which  is  according  to 
goodness,  he  is  puffed  up,  knowing  nothing." 


CONTENTS. 


A  FOREWORD:  Summation  of  the  Argument. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Page. 

The  Origin  of  this  Pamphlet . .       9 

CHAPTER  II. 
The  Decree  of  Jerusalem  Council 18 

CHAPTER  III. 
The  Christian  Church  Organized  as  a  Missionary  Body 20 

CHAPTER   IV. 
Constitutionality  of  the  Overture. 26 

CH  AFTER  V. 
Review  of  General  Assembly  Action  of  1904 , 35 

CHAPTER  VI. 
Overture,  with  Memoranda 45 

CHAPfRK   VII. 

Virginia  Synod 50 

CHAPTER  VI11. 
Address  to  Synod 72 

CHAPTER  IX. 
Bible  Argument :   Part  I.  New  Testament 84 

CHAPTER  X. 
Part  II.  Old  Testament 109 

(7) 


8 

CHAPTER  XI. 

Page. 

Von  Dobschuts  and  Binghain 127 

CHAPTER  XII. 
"Free  Love"... 136 

CHAPTER  XIII. 
Lessons 1 45 

CHAPTER  XIV. 
Anti-polygamous  Missions — Africa 159 

CHAPTER  XV. 
Japan — China — India 172 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
The  Position  of  the  Churches 188 

CHAFI-ER  XVII. 
Indians  and  Mormons 200 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 
Conclusion...  .  215 


POLYGAMY  AND  CITIZENSHIP 

IN 

CHURCH  AND  STATE. 

CHAPTER  I. 
THE  OCCASION  OF  THIS  PAMPHLET. 

The  relation  of  polygamy  to  citizenship  is  regarded  a  vital 
problem.  This  problem  is  solved  by  the  courts  of  all  civilized 
nations  by  its  condemnation  and  punishment  as  a 
crime.  Right  here  in  Washington  City,  a  court  of  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia,  whilst  I  was  writing  this  pamphlet,  sent  a 
bigamist  to  the  penitentiary.  This  is  treating  it  as  a  felony, 
a  high  crime. 

Under  human  law  grave  offenses  are  crimes;  under  the 
divine  law  all  offenses  are  sins. 

Certainly  the  relation  of  polygamy  to  church  member- 
ship is  not  less  vital  to  the  church  than  to  state  citizen- 
ship. That  is  the  essential  point — the  gravaman — of  this 
pamphlet.  Whilst  it  deals  with  a  particular  case,  the  South- 
ern Presbyterian  Church,  its  scope,  however,  is  as  broad  as 
Christendom . 

I  will  at  once  explain  to  the  reader  the  occasion  and  reason 
of  my  writing  this  pamphlet. 

As  this  explanation  has  been  fairly  well  given  in  an 
article  published  in  The  Southwestern  Presbyterian,  April  4, 
1906,  one  of  the  leading  papers  of  the  Southern  Presbyte- 

(9) 


10 

rian  Church,  published  in  New  Orleans,  La.,  and  as  it  has 
not  been  furnished  to  any  other  paper,  I  will  appropriate  it 
here,  with  proper  acknowledgments.  Let  it  be  understood 
that  the  proceedings  and  documents  therein  referred  to  all 
appear  later  in  the  pamphlet;  and  also,  that  this  article  was 
in  response  to  a  call  made  in  an  earnest  editorial  comment 
after  considering  the  overture,  the  action  thereon  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  and  of  the  Synod  of  Virginia,  and  also  the 
joint  complaint  of  several  members  of  Synod  carrying  the 
overture  up  to  the  General  Assembly  of  1906. 

This  explanation  was  given  in  response  to  editorial  com- 
ment on  the  overture  and  the  Complaint. 

\ 
f 

"IS  THIS  TRUE?" 

In  publishing  the  overture  on  polygamy  laid  before  the 
Synod  of  Virginia,  and  referring  to  the  Complaint  which 
carries  it  up  to  the  next  General  Assembly  (1908),  The 
Southwestern  Presbyterian  of  February  28,  1908,  presents 
some  carefully  prepared  comments  and  judiciously  observes : 

"The  appositeness  of  all  this  depends  upon  the  fact, 
evidently  satisfactorily  proved  to  the  author's  mind, 
but  not  shown  to  others  except  in  his  general  state- 
ments, that  our  church  is  admitting,  harboring,  and 
tolerating  polygamy.  Is  this  true?  If  it  is,  by  all 
means  let  specific  charges  be  brought  and  let  the 
matter  be  dealt  with  judicially  and  not  in  thesi.  If 
the  Committee  of  Foreign  Missions  is  responsible,  let 
it  be  brought  before  the  bar  of  the  church.  If  any 
missionary  is  responsible,  let  his  Presbytery  be  duly 
informed  of  the  facts  and  be  urged  to  deal  with  the 
case.  If  there  is  warrant  for  definite  action,  why 
not  institute  it  in  a  definite  way,  by  judicial  pro- 
cms?" 


11 

The  alternatives  suggested  were  considered,  and  going  di- 
rectly to  the  General  Assembly  was  and  is  still  considered 
the  wiser  one.  If  it  fails,  the  other  is  available. 

The  two  methods  of  procedure  were  (1)  to  take  the  case 
by  overture  directly ,  to  the  General  Assembly  for  its  com- 
petent administrative  notice  or  (2)  by  judicial  process  begun 
in  the  lower  court. 

The  question  is:  "Is  this  true?"  Is  what  true?  Is  it  true 
that  our  (Southern  Presbyterian)  Church  is  admitting,  har- 
boring, and  tolerating  polygamy?  I  answer  YES,  it  is  true. 
I  ask  you  to  please  allow  me  to  state  some  of  the  reasons 
which  evidently  satisfy  my  own  mind  and  must  satisfy  any 
other  mind  of  the  fact. 

I  enclose  two  clippings,  which  I  hope  you  will  publish 
entire. 

From  the  Washington  Post,  March  21,  1904: 

"POLYGAMOUS  PRESBYTERIANS. 

"They  Are  to  Be  Found  Among  the  Natives  of  the 
Congo  Free  State. 

"Polygamy  thrives  in  the  Congo  Free  State,  not 
alone  without  the  medium  of  a  Mormon  church,  but 
within  the  Presbyterian  Church,  according  to  the 
description  which  Rev.  W.  M.  Morrison,  a  missionary 
to  that  country  for  the  Presbyterian  denomination, 
presented  to  the  congregation  of  the  Central  Presby- 
terian church,  last  night. 

"  'Some  of  the  natives  have  as  many  as  five  wives/ 
said  the  missionary.  'Many  members  of  the  church 
have  as  many  as  two  wives.  When  they  are  repri- 
manded for  polygamous  living  in  the  church,  they 
will  respond  that  they  had  the  wives  when  the  gospel 
was  brought  to  them;  that  it  is  the  custom  of  the 
country,  and  previous  to  the  coming  of  the  white 


12 

man  no  one  thought  it  wrong;  and,  therefore,  it 
would  be  wrong  to  desert  all  but  one  of  the  plural 
wives  and  their  families/ 

"Rev.  Mr.  Morrison  spoke  of  this  point  of  the  Afri- 
can's life  in  a  talk  on  the  work  in  the  Congo  Free 
State.  Women,  he  said,  possess'  rights  there  which 
are  hardly  dreamed  of  in  the  Orient,  and  more  than 
the  American  woman.  The  clothing  varied  from  the 
'black/  which  the  children  wore,  to  a  single  strip 
of  cloth,  or,  in  some  cases,  a  sheet  which  wrapped 
the  body.  The  religion  of  the  natives  was  that  of 
ancestry  worship." 

From  the  Evening  Star,  Washington,  Monday,  March  21, 
1904: 

"PRACTICE  POLYGAMY. 

"Statement  Regarding  a  Custom  in  Congo  Free  State. 

"Rev.  W.  M.  Morrison,  a  missionary  to  the  Congo 
Free  State  for  the  Presbyterian  denomination,  pre- 
sented to  the  congregation  of  the  Central  Presbyte- 
rian church  last  evening  a  description  of  the  poly- 
gamous customs  of  the  people  in  his  mission  field. 

"  'Some  of  the  natives  have  as  many  as  five  wives,7 
said  the  missionary.  'Many  members  of  the  church 
have  as  many  as  two  wives.  When  they  are  repri- 
manded for  polygamous  living  in  the  church  they 
will  respond  that  they  had  the  wives  when  the  gospel 
was  brought  to  them;  that  it  is  the  custom  of  the 
country,  and  previous  to  the  coming  of  the  white 
man  no  one  thought  it  wrong;  and,  therefore,  it 
would  be  wrong  to  desert  all  but  one  of  the  plural 
wives  and  their  families.7 

"He  said,  however,  that  the  women  of  the  African 
state  occupied  a  position  never  dreamed  of  in  the 
Orient,  and  as  high  as  that  of  the  American  women." 


13 

These  two  influential  papers  have  a  circulation  of  about 
seventy  thousand  daily.  Their  reports  are  careful.  It  is  the 
habit  of  these  papers  to  publish  in  the  Monday  issues  notices 
of  what  is  said  on  Sabbath  in  the  pulpits  of  the  city.  You 
will  notice  that  these  clippings  are  from  the  Monday  issues — 
now  two  years  since.  At  that  time  this  community  and  the 
country  at  large  were  in  a  state  of  no  ordinary  excite- 
ment over  the  Mormon  Smoot  case  before  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee and  still  pending,  as  to  whether  he  should  be  ousted 
from  his  seat  in  the  Senate.* 

I  was  shocked  and  started  out  to  correct  the  supposed  unin- 
tentional misrepresentation.  But  just  then  Dr.  D.  W.  C. 
Snyder,  our  returned  missionary  from  Luebo,  Africa,  where 
he  had  served  our  church  some  seven  years,  came  to  my  house 
as  a  guest.  I  laid  the  matter  before  him.  He  informed  me 
that  the  representation  was  true.  He  stated  that  he  found 
polygamy  in  the  church  and  acquiesced  in  it  reluctantly, 
and  had -it  still  in  mind  to  overture  the  General  Assembly  on 
the  subject,  and  I  expressed  the  hope  that  he  would  do  so. 

As  co-operating,  I  prepared  an  overture  to  be  presented  to 
the  Maryland  Presbytery,  to  which  I  had  been  transferred 
from  the  Charleston  Presbytery,  S.  C.  But  by  an  unexpected 
adjournment,  I  failed  to  get  it  before  my  own  Pres- 
bytery. A  member  of  the  Chesapeake  Presbytery,  which 
was  to  meet  in  Alexandria  the  next  week,  suggested  to 
me  to  bring  it  before  that  body.  Well,  as  a  corresponding 
member,  and  after  speaking  to  some  of  the  brethren,  I  did  so. 
It  was  zealously  discussed',  and  the  vote  stood  15  for  to  8 
against  it.  There  was  entered  a  protest.  In  the  course  of 
the  discussion,  Dr.  Pitzer,  in  whose  church  Dr.  Morrison 
made  the  discourse  referred  to  by  the  papers,  and  who  was  a 
guest  of  Dr.  Pitzer,  stated  before  Presbytery  as  a  matter  of 
knowledge  from  this  discourse,  and  from  private  personal 

*  In  the  House  Roberts  was  denied  a  seat,  but  in  the  Senate  Smoot 
was  seated  with  the  distinct  understanding  that  his  right  to  hold  it 
would  be  contested. 


14 

conversation,  that  the  existence  of  polygamy  in  the  African 
church  was  a  fact.  He  defended  it,  voted  against  the  over- 
ture, and  led  in  filing  the  protest. 

Thus  I  found  that  it  was  our  church  and  not  th*e  papers 
that  needed  correction.  This  overture  was  the  result,  with 
the  idea  that  its  passage  would  be  a  walkover  without  con- 
troversy even  in  the  General  Assembly. 

Soon  after  the  Chesapeake  Presbytery,  which  adjourned 
April  21,  1904,  I  received  a  letter  from  Dr.  W.  M.  Morrison, 
our  returned  missionary,  dated  Louisville,  Ky.,  June  28,  in 
which  he  severely  called  me  to  task  for  what  I  had  done.  He 
generously  credited  me  with  sincerity  in  this  ignorantly  med- 
dlesome interference  and  "unseemly  agitation"  of  a  question 
which  can  only  be  judged  wisely  by  the  missionary  in  the 
field.  This  current  claim  of  certain  missionaries  is  not  to  be 
conceded  for  an  instant,  as  the  moral  and  religious  character 
of  the  conjugal  relation  do  not  depend  on  varying  circum- 
stances, but  are  settled  by  Christ  himself.  However,  he  also 
concedes  my  friendliness  to  the  mission,  for  he  knew  that  I 
had  given  him  one  hundred  dollars  for  the  printing  press  and, 
probably,  that  I  had  sent  a  fifty-dollar  draft  to  one  of  his  col- 
leagues. I  mention  this  only  to  repel  the  ignorant  imputa- 
tions which  have  been  indulged. 

There  is  a  still  more  important  part  of  this  letter  which  I 
must  give,  because  it  squarely  answers  the  question,  "Is  this 
true?" 

In  reference  to  the  newspaper  statements  above  given,  he 
writes,  "Now  what  I  did  say  was  this :  We  have  a  few  men  in 
our  African  church  who  have  two  wives.  There  are  perhaps 
not  more  than  fifteen  or  twenty  in  over  two  thousand  mem- 
bership." In  the  Virginia  Synod  at  Richmond  (1905)  he 
qualified  this  by  saying  that  there  were  only  four  or  five 
polygamists.  But  added,  very  properly,  the  principle  is  the 
same;  and  then  I  understood  him  to  deny  the  right  of  the 
home  church  to  dictate  to  the  missionary  in  this  matter. 

I  had  intended  to  quote  his  argument  for  polygamy  in  the 
church  and  "against  making  monogamy  a  condition  of 


15 

church  membership/7  but  it  is  too  long  for  this  communica- 
tion. However,  I  shall  use  it  in  a  pamphlet  on  this  subject 
which  will  soon  be  published.*  He  arid  other  returned  mis- 

*I  will  here  insert  the  main  body  of  Dr.  Morrison's  letter  as  a 
statement  of  the  polygamist  plea  and  of  the  introduction  of  polyg- 
amy into  our  church  at  Luebo,  Africa : 

"Now  what  I  did  say  was  this :  We  have  a  few  men  in  our 
African  Church  who  have  two  wives.  There  are  perhaps  not  more 
than  fifteen  or  twenty  in  the  over  two  thousand  membership. 
Throughout  the  history  of  the  Church,  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles 
down  to  the  present  time,  Christianity  upon  its  first  introduction  into 
a  pagan  country  has  had  to  contend  with  polygamy.  Though  the 
teaching  of  Christ  and  the  spirit  of  Christianity  are  clearly  against 
polygamy,  yet  there  is  nothing  in  the  New  Testament  to  warrant  us, 
upon  the  introduction  of  Christianity  into  pagan  countries,  in  making 
monogamy  a  condition  of  church  membership.  ( ?)  There  were  polyg- 
amists  in  the  early  Apostolic  Church,  as  is  clearly  shown  in  Paul's 
letter  to  Timothy  where  we  are  told  that  only  a  man  who  has  one 
wife  can  hold  office  in  the  Church,  clearly  implying  that  there  were 
men  in  the  Church  who  did  have  more  than  one  wife.  (?)  In  giving  the 
qualifications  of  a  man  today  for  such  an  office,  it  would  certainly 
not  be  necessary  to  say  that  he  should  have  to  be  the  husband  of  only 
one  wife.  This  conies  like  somewhat  of  a  shock  to  us  at  first,  but  we 
who  are  brought  face  to  face  with  these  problems  on  the  foreign  field 
must  meet  them  in  the  spirit  of  Christ  and  we  dare  not  set  up  con- 
ditions for  Church  membership  different  from  those  indicated  in  the 
Bible.  In  the  settling  of  such  a  question  we  must  not  forget  that  the 
woman  and  the  children  of  a  polygamous  marriage  have  some  rights, 
and  Christianity  respects  these  rights.  To  put  away  a  woman  with 
her  children  does  her  and  the  children  a  great  injustice,  and  will 
more  than  likely  force  her  into  marriage  with  another  man,  which 
would  be  adultery.  ( ?)  Consequently,  at  I/uebo,  after  long  and  careful 
prayer  and  deliberation  over  this  matter,  we  have  decided  that  it  is 
right  for  us  to  admit  men  with  more  than  one  wife,  but  on  the  condi- 
tion that  no  more  wives  shall  be  taken  and  also  on  the  condition  that 
such  men  shall  not  be  permitted  to  hold  any  position  of  prominence 
in  the  Church,  such  as  teacher  or  evangelist.  This  latter  puts  a  ban 
on  polygamy,  and  just  as  polygamy  was  thus  in  course  of  time  weeded 
out  of  the  early  church  (?)  so  we  find  that  polygamy  is  fast  decreasing 
in  the  regions  about  our  missions.  We  believe  that  the  time  will  not 
be  far  distant  at  Luebo  when  we  can  make  monogamy  a  condition  of 
church  membership.  Already  in  some  of  the  older  missions  on  the 
Congo  they  are  now  at  a  point  where  monogamy  can  be  insisted  on. 

"The  above  is  in  substance  what  I  said."    Below  p.  92. 


16 

sionaries  have  been  industriously  arguing  in  support  of  ad- 
mitting and  tolerating  polygamy  in  the  mission  church. 
Two  of  their  communications  on  the  subject  having  come 
into  my  hands,  I  have  typewritten  copies  of  them. 

In  your  commendable  inquiry  as  to  the  responsibility  of 
this  astounding  condition  of  things,  you  raise  the  question  as 
to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Missions.  Let  me  say  that  I 
have  a  letter  from  the  Secretary  in  which  all  responsibility 
for  this  polygamy  in  the  African  and  Chinese  churches  is 
disclaimed,  and  the  responsibility  is  placed  on  the  General 
Assembly.  (Below,  p.  195.) 

In  the  complaint,  of  which  you  have  a  copy,  and  which 
is  not  individual  but  plural,  as  a  number  have  signed  it, 
Presbyterial  authority  and  responsibility  as  primary  are  dis- 
tinctly recognized.  But  I  submit  that  it  is  a  mistake  to 
assume  or  to  assert  that  our  General  Assembly  is  not  com- 
petent to  deal  with  such  a  situation  as  that  before  us  other- 
wise than  judicially.  The  administrative  functions  of  that 
body  are  not  confined  to  appellate  processes  from  inferior 
courts.  The  Assembly  often  meets  cases  more  immediately 
and  satisfactorily.  In  the  existing  case,  the  General  Assembly 
was  perfectly  competent  "to  hear  testimony  against  error  and 
immorality  in  practice,  injuriously  affecting  the  church;  to 
decide  *  *  *  respecting  discipline ;  to  give  its  advice  and 
instruction,  in  conformity  with  the  constitution  in  all  cases 
submitted  to  it."  A  concrete  case,  presumably  within  the 
knowledge  of  the  body,  was  virtually  submitted  by  one  of  its 
constituent  Presbyteries,  without  censoriously  naming  church 
or  individual,  and  although  the  matter  was  not  canvassed  on 
the  floor,  still  it  was  distinctly  in  the  possession  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  Bills  and  Overtures,  when  preparing  its  report  on 
the  overture,  and  should  have  been  stated  when  that  report 
was  made.  If  there  was  not  as  full  information  as  desirable, 
then  the  overture  should  have  been  entrusted  to  an  ad 
interim  committee  for  full  investigation.  And  that  will 
probably  be  the  best  procedure  by  the  next  Assembly. 


17 

But  it  is  not  possible  for  the  action  of  the  1904  Assembly, 
even  with  the  endorsement  of  the  Synod  of  Virginia,  to  dis- 
pose of  this  case.  It  may  now  be  said  that  however  undesir- 
able and  unnecessary  originally  was  a  judicial  process,  yet 
if  rendered  unavoidable,  it  will  certainly  come  before  the 
General  Assembly  in  that  vexatious  way. 

The  conscience  of  the  church  will  never  brook  the  tolera- 
tion of  polygamy  in  our  communion.  The  primary  aim  of 
the  overture  was  to  avert  threatened  disgrace ;  an  opportunity 
to  do  so  is  still  afforded  in  the  reconsideration  of  this  overture 
without  constraining  a  resort  to  the  agonies  of  a  judicial 
process. 

The  foregoing  extract  embodied  in  this  article  is  from  the 
Southwestern  Presbyterian  of  February  28,  1906,  and  a  por- 
tion of  what  precedes  and  of  what  follows  it  will  also  be 
given : 

"The  subject  will  interest  many.  Concerning  the  main 
contention  there  will  be  but  one  opinion.  That  is  the  opinion 
expressed  throughout  the  Synod's  action  (?)  The  position  of 
the  church  should  be  and  assuredly  is  absolutely  clear  and 
unequivocal  upon  the  questions  of  the  Bible  law  of  marriage 
and  the  sinfulness  of  polygamy.  And  still  further,  all  will 
agree  that  its  action  should  be  in  full  accord  with  its  prin- 
ciple. Whether  it  is  so  or  not  is  a  point  upon  which  there 
may  be  just  now  difference  of  judgment.  As  one  reads  Dr. 
Laws'  paper  one  sees  in  it,  chiefly,  notwithstanding  his  dis- 
claimer of  the  assertion  that  his  overture  relates  only  to  our 
foreign  missionary  work  (?)  charges  that  our  church  is  vio- 
lating the  word  of  God  and  her  settled  principles.  He  asserts 
that  there  are  missions  where  polygamists  are  permitted  to  be 
in  our  churches.  He  makes  the  assertion  of  fact,  and  we 
know  he  would  not  do  so  without  substantial  reason  for  it.  If 
our  church  is  tolerating  or  endorsing  the  evil,  it  would  be 


18 

well  to  state  directly  when  and  where  and  by  whom."     (That 
is  just  what  I  have  now  done.) 

*  ****** 

And  then  immediately  following  the  extract  given: 

"Then  the  facts  would  he  brought  out  if  they  exist,  and  the 
skirts  of  the  church  would  be  cleared.  It  is  denied,  however, 
from  authoritative  sources,  as  to  at  least  two  of  our  missions 
which  are  working  in  polygamous  surroundings.  Mere  news- 
paper charges  and  loose  popular  talk  about  the  church  as 
'polygamous'  amount  to  nothing  of  itself.  Christ  was  not 
gluttonous  and  a  wine-bibber  because  the  masses  around  him 
said  that  he  was.  The  church  will  be  glad  to  have  the  whole 
matter  brought  out  in  its  actual  facts,  and  then  it  will  in- 
telligently determine  what  specific  action  it  owes  to  its  un- 
questioned principles." 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE  DECREE  OF  THE  COUNCIL  AT  JERUSALEM. 

"And  as  they  (Paul  and  Silas)  went  on  their  way  through 
the  cities,  they  delivered  them  the  decrees  to  keep  which  had 
been  ordained  of  the  Apostles  and  Elders  that  were  at  Jeru- 
salem. So  the  churches  were  strengthened  in  the  faith,  and 
increased  in  number  daily."  Acts  xvi:  4,  5,  and  29.  These 
"decrees"  were  addressed,  by  this  assembly  of  apostles  and 
elders,  in  a  letter  to  Gentile  converts,  after  having  listened  to 
the  account  that  Paul  and  Barnabas  gave  of  their  first  mis- 
sionary tour  among  the  Gentiles.  These  disciplinary  decrees 
seem  to  have  had  a  wholesome  influence.  The  Jewish  ele- 
ment had  raised  the  question  whether  these  converts  and  all 
Gentile  converts,  should  not  be  circumcised  before  admission 
to  the  Christian  fellowship;  whereas  they  had  been  by  Paul 
admitted  by  baptism  without  exacting  the  observance  of 
Mosaic  ceremonials.  The  council  did  not  change  the  terms 


19 


of  admission;  arid  instead  of  enjoining  the  observance  of 
circumcision,  enjoined  the  renunciation  of  and  abstinence 
from  certain  heathen  practices.  The  language  of  the  letter  is 
thus  given :  "It  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  to  us,  to 
lay  upon  you  no  greater  burden  than  these  necessary  things : 
That  (1)  ye  abstain  from  things  sacrificed  to  idols — the  pol- 
lutions of  idols;  and  (2)  from  blood;  and  (3)  from  things 
strangled  (which  related  to  demon  worship)  ;  and  (4)  from 
fornication  (or  polygamy)  :  from  which  if  ye  keep  your- 
selves, it  shall  be  well  with  you.  Fare  ye  well." 

The  last  clause,  and  from  fornication — verses  19  and  29,  is 
properly  rendered  and  from  polygamy,  for  xopveia  was,  on 
good  authority,  a  common  designation  of  polygamy  among 
Jews  and  Gentiles.  Of  this,  more  anon. 

It  is  in  harmony  with  this  scripture  that  Paul  enjoins, 
I  Cor.  vii:  2,  as  a  countervailing  self -protection,  morally, 
against  the  prevailing  and  seductive  influences  of  polyg- 
amy— "because  of  fornications" — "Let  each  man  have  his 
own  wife,  and  let  each  woman  have  her  own  husband."  This 
is  heaven-ordained  monogamy.  The  contradictory  of  polyg- 
amy. Thayer's  Greek  Lexicon  virtually  sustains  this. 

Porneia,  fornication,  designated  more  especially,  concu- 
binage, the  vulgar  and  popular  form  of  polygamy  in  the  age 
when  these  deliverances  were  made,  and  the  same  is  true  in 
all  preceding  and  subsequent  ages  and  among  all  nations. 
This  is  a  preliminary  send-off  to  the  following  Discourse: 

It  is  not  consecutive  polygamy,  or  the  marrying  of  one 
wife  after  another,  being  duly  absolved  from  the  previous 
marriage,  so  as  to  have  but  one  wife  at  the  same  time;  but 
simultaneous  polygamy,  the  having  several  so-called  wives 
at  the  same  time,  against  which  it  is  here  to  be  understood 
that  this  decree  of  the  Jerusalem  Council  and  the  injunction 


20 

of  the  apostle  were  aimed,  as  licentious  fornication  and  adul- 
tery— as  polygamy.  Polygamy  is  a  misnomer,  for  men 
really  marry  but  one  wife,  and  never  marry  the  so-called 
polygamous  wives — the  mistresses  or  concubines. 

It  is  the  imperious  duty  of  the  Christian  church  to  un- 
compromisingly adhere  to  monogamy  in  its  mission  work. 
It  was  in  this  way  the  church  began  its  mission  work,  and 
in  this  way  it  should  be  continued.  This  proposition  will  be 
elucidated  and  vindicated  in  what  follows. 

CHAPTER  III. 
THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH  A  MISSIONARY  BODY. 

The  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  was  instituted  as  the  heaven- 
appointed  means  of  executing  the  Great  Commission.  It 
was  organized  on  the  basis  of  his  Deity.  By  appointment  he 
met  his  disciples  after  his  resurrection,  in  a  mountain  of  Gali- 
lee, and  "spake  unto  them,  saying:  All  authority — (rightful 
power) — hath  been  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  on  earth, 
Go  ye  therefore,  and  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations,  bap- 
tizing them  into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and 
of  the  Holy  Spirit :  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  what- 
soever I  commanded  you :  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  world."  Here  his  Deity  is  asserted  and 
the  Christian  church  holds  from  its  divine  founder  this  broad 
commission  which  constitutes  it  his  agent  for  the  world's  con- 
version. 

By  its  original  vocation,  therefore,  this  church  of  Christ 
is  a  missionary  body.  And  its  disciples  are  to  be  gathered 
from  all  nations.  For  a  century  and  more,  so  thoroughly 
have  Christians  been  aroused  to  a  distinct  recognition  of  their 
duty  to  teach  all  nations  the  saving  truths  of  the  gospel,  that 


21 

the  fruits  of  their  devoted,  widespread  and  persevering  labors 
have  brought  about  a  critical  transition  condition  which  gives 
a  special  emphasis  to  the  work  of  missions  at  the  present  time 
at  home  and  abroad.  This  transition  condition  of  the  mis- 
sions which  now  confronts  us  is  from  a  state  of  dependence, 
(on  the  part  of  the  mission  churches)  on  the  home  churches 
to  a  state  of  independence  and  autonomy.  This  aspect  of  the 
general  situation  is  strikingly  illustrated  in  Japan,  which  now 
has  its  own  General  Assembly  crowning  completely  its  sepa- 
rate Presbyterial  Church  organization.  On  a  limited  scale 
we  find  the  same  movement  in  China,  in  Africa  and  India. 

An  interesting  feature  of  this  situation  is  that,  whilst  this 
independent  and  automatic  condition  of  the  churches,  in 
these  foreign  lands,  is  the  very  thing  for  which  the  home 
churches  have  been  laboring  and  praying  from  the  begin- 
ning, yet  its  actual  or  threatened  realization  takes  us  some- 
what by  surprise  and  gives  rise  to  no  little  solicitude  and  even 
distrust.  But  this  outcome,  ultimately  inevitable, — is  the 
result  of  successful  missionary  enterprise.  The  only  proper 
ground  of  solicitude  is  as  to  whether  the  preparation  for  this 
autonomy  is  sufficient  and  adequate  to  meet  the  internal  and 
external  strain  of  the  new  life. 

The  point  on  which  it  is  now  desired  to  fix  attention  is  the 
very  great  importance  of  implanting  no  false  doctrine  or 
practice  and  of  inculcating  sound  and  steadfast  scriptural 
gospel  principles  in  the  life  of  these  infant  churches,  whilst 
in  their  pupilage,  which  shall  prepare  them  for  their  experi- 
ence of  self-support  and  self-control  in  the  future.  Of  this 
pupilage  it  may  be  truly  said: — 

"  'Tis  education  forms  the  common  mind ; 
"  Just  as  the  twig  is  bent  the  tree's  inclined." 


22 

The  relation  of  the  home  churches  has  been  and  still  is 
educational.  There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  but  that 
these  fostered  churches,  whether  individually  or  collectively, 
will  carry  down  into  their  ecclesiastical  future  the  views  and 
practices  impressed  upon  them  and  with  which  they  were 
made  familiar  in  their  early  experiences  as  proper  to  and 
allowable  in  their  Christian  life  as  fostered  churches.  Touch- 
ing this  aspect  of  things,  from  the  protestant  standpoint, 
the  secretary  of  the  Church  Missionary  Society,  Lon- 
don, read  an  interesting  paper  before  the  Centennial  Mission- 
ary Conference,  1888,  from  which,  though  rather  sanguine 
and  conservative,  a  pertinent  extract  may  be  made.  In  con- 
clusion, then,  he  says: 

"I  will  only  say  that  the  eventuality  to  which  I  look 
forward  is  somewhat  of  the  following  kind  :— 

"That  there  will  be,  in  India,  for  instance,  a  great 
Indian  Church,  from  which  the  Roman  Catholic  and 
some  smaller  bodies  will  stand  aloof,  but  to  which, 
notwithstanding,  the  great  mass  of  Indian  Christians 
will  belong: 

"That  the  earnest  and  active  members  of  this 
(union)  church  will  hold  fast  to  such  great  facts,  and 
truths,  and  beliefs  as  the  following:  The  Trinity  of 
God;  the  Incarnation;  the  Propitiation  through 
Christ's  death;  the  Resurrection  of  Christ, involving  in 
itself  the  ultimate  resurrection  of  all  believers;  the 
present  and  eternal  spiritual  union  of  all  believers  with 
Christ,  and  so  with  one  another,  and  the  indwelling 
in  them  of  the  Holy  Spirit — 'eternal  life  and  eternal 
punishment'  (Matt,  xxv:  46) ;  the  Bible  as  the  sole 
and  unerring  rule  of  faith  and  practice;  the  reality, 
the  necessity  and  duty  and  efficacy  of  prayer,  espe- 
cially of  united  prayer.  I  say  such  truths  as  these, 
because  I  do  not  mean  the  list  to  be  in  any  way  ex- 
haustive." (Centenary  Conference,  vol.  2,  p.  476.) 


23 

He  supposes  a  great  variety  of  ritual  ceremonies  and 
government — as  things  indifferent  and  non-essential. 

Whether  any  given  catalogue  of  truths  shall  in  detail  be 
transmitted  and  realized  or  not,  sure  we  are  that  the  funda- 
mental truths  of  the  gospel  are  destined  to  an  imperishable 
existence  in  the  churches,  else  the  gospel  itself  must  ulti- 
mately prove  to  be  a  failure.  The  transmission  of  things 
indifferent  may  be  contemplated  with  composure  and  equa- 
nimity. 

But  suppose  some  confessedly  sinful^  practice  such  as 
Sabbath  desecration,  gambling,  profanity,  licentiousness, 
thieving — should  find  its  way  into  the  mission  churches  of 
the  present  and  be  tolerated  therein,  either  deliberately  or 
through  neglect  of  faithful  discipline,  so  that  it  would  pass 
on  down  to  the  rising  generations  as  an  allowable  or  tolerable 
course  of  life  for  a  church  member — a  course  of  life,  how- 
ever, which  was  acknowledged  to  be  sinful  in  its  character, 
but  yet  had  not  been  made  the  subject  of  condemnatory  and 
expurgatory  discipline  by  the  officers  of  the  fostering  church— 
what  would  be  thought  of  it?  What  must  be  thought  of  it? 
There  would  be  reason  for  trembling  apprehension  as  to  its 
influence  in  the  future.  When  the  Corinthian  Church  was 
not  only  surrounded  but  invaded  by  corruption,  Paul's  posi- 
tive injunction  and  instruction  were  that  church  members 
should  not  associate  with  such  as  are  guilty  of  the  unchris- 
tian sinful  practices  which  he  enumerates.  He  says  to  the 
Corinthians:  "Put  away  the  wicked  man  'from  among 
yourselves."  (1  Cor.  v:  13.)  He  in  terms  and  in  the  same 
connection  excludes  from  church  association,  i.  e.,  from 
church  membership,  fornicators  (polygamists),  idolaters, 
extortioners,  slanderers,  and  drunkards.  It  is  made  the 


24 

duty  of  Christians  to  judge  of  such  within  the  church,  but 
God  will  take  account  of  those  outside.  Now,  one  of  the 
current  expressions  in  this  evil  list,  iwpveta  was,  in  Paul's 
day,  the  reproachful  name  for  polygamy,  viz.,  forni- 
cation. Polygamy  was  designated  (porneia)  fornication. 
John  viii:  41.  The  Jews  say,  we  were  not  born  of  fornica- 
tion; we  have  one  Father,  even  God."  (//>£*?  IK  xopvdas 
OUK  /c.  r.  A.)  Josephus  speaks  of  8  of  Jacob's  sons  as 
"legitimate,"  and  4  by  handmaidens,  Dan  and  Naphthali  by 
Bilhah,  and  Gad  and  Asher  by  Zilpah.  The  reason  of  the 
sensitiveness  of  the  Jews  was  that  they  were  in  fact  hatched 
in  a  polygamous  nest.  The  Christ  taps  their  worldly  pride 
of  birth.  Eminent  scholarship  has  with  reason  understood 
the  circular  letter  addressed  by  the  General  Assembly  or 
Council  of  Jerusalem  (Acts  xv)  to  heathen  or  gentile  con- 
verts as  enjoining  abstinence  from,  or  avoidance  of,  polygamy 
in  the  clause  of  that  letter — "and  from  fornication."  There 
will  be  occasion  later  to  recur  to  this  matter.  Meanwhile  let 
us  bear  in  mind  the  critical  remark  of  the  great  scholar,  John 
Lightfoot,  that,  "Whatever  else  is  understood  by  this  word 
fornication  (iwpveta)  I  would  certainly  understand  this, 
namely,  that  the  apostles  prescribed  against  polygamy." 
(Acts  xv :  19,  29.)  Lightfoot  (1602-1675)  finds  explicit 
prohibition  of  simultaneous  polygamy  in  both  Testaments. 

All  Christian  churches  Latin,  Greek,  and  Protestant  are 
intolerant  of  polygamy  in  their  creeds,  and  the  laws  of  all  the 
political  states  of  Christian  civilization  arraign  and  punish  it 
as  a  crime.  By  the  states  polygamy  is  dealt  with  as  the 
violation  of  a  law  of  nature.  Right  here  in  the  District  of 
Columbia,  within  less  than  ten  days  prior  to  this  writing,  a 
man,  a  citizen  of  this  city,  was  promptly  condemned  to  the 


25 

penitentiary  for  two  years  for  bigamy,  the  lowest  grade  of 
polygamy.  The  District  of  Columbia  is  a  territory  and  the 
United  States  Laws  operate  on  this  subject  directly.  And 
wherever  the  United  States  courts  can  lay  their  hands  on 
polygamists  they  are  dealt  with  as  criminals,  it  may  be  as 
felons.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  courts  on 
this  subject,  however,  is  limited  to  U.  S.  territories,  for  the 
reason  that  the  individual  states  have  never  delegated  to  the 
General  Government  jurisdiction  over  this  subject  within 
their  several  bounds.  And  the  only  way  in  which  the  General 
Government  of  the  United  States  can  now  acquire  legislative 
or  judicial  control  over  this  subject  of  the  marriage  relation 
within  the  several  States  would  be  by  an  amendment  of  the 
Constitution — a  matter  of  profound  public  concern,  but  dif- 
ficult of  attainment.  The  case  of  the  present  State  of  Utah 
is  anomalous;  for  it  covenanted  to  maintain  monogamy  as  a 
term  of  admission  to  the  sisterhood  of  the  United  States. 
When  it  was  a  territory  the  United  States  courts  put  polyg- 
amists in  jail  and  the  penitentiary.  But  Utah  now  pleads 
the  immunity  of  statehood.  (I  am  reported  in  the  Pan-Pres- 
byterian Council,  1899,  in  this  city,  as  having  stated  on  the 
floor  of  that  body  that  the  explanation  of  our  surprising  im- 
potence as  to  divorces  is  that  the  subject  is  wholly  in  the 
power  of  the  General  Government — the  very  opposite  of  what 
I  said.*  I  was  disappointed  when  the  Secretary  refused  my 
correction  on  a  slip  to  be  inserted  in  the  volumes  before  dis- 
tributing.) 

*  Indeed,  the  General  Government  of  the  United  States  has  no  power 
over  this  or  any  other  subject,  unless  that  power  has  been  delegated  to 
it  by  the  individual  states  jointly.  The  United  States  Constitution  con- 
sists of  an  enumeration  of  such  delegated  powers.  There  is  no  una- 
nimity in  the  laws  of  the  several  states  on  divorce,  but  there  is  now  a 
powerful  movement  on  foot  to  bring  that  about. 


20 

CHAPTER  IV. 
THE  CONSTITUTIONALITY  OF  THE  OVERTURE. 

Now,  my  present  interest  is  in  the  subject  of  polygamy  in 
its  relation  to  that  portion  of  the  Presbyterian  Church; 
popularly  spoken  of  and  known  as  the  Southern  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States.  The  constitution  of  this 
church  consists  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  the 
Cathechisms  and  the  form  of  government.  Chapter  xxiv  of 
the  Confession  of  Faith  is  on  marriage  and  divorce  and  its 
first  paragraph  is  in  these  words :  "Marriage  is  to  be  between 
one  man  and  one  woman :  neither  is  it  lawful  for  any  man  to 
have  more  than  one  wife,  nor  for  any  woman  to  have  more 
than  one  husband  at  the  same  time."  No  language  could,  by 
any  possibility,  more  definitely  and  unequivocally  define  the 
unlawfulness  of  any  relation  as  truly  conjugal  between  more 
than  one  man  and  one  woman  or  one  woman  and  one  man,  at 
the  same  time  within  the  sweep  of  its  authority — i.  e.,  within 
the  Presbyterian  Church.  This  provision  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith  is  reinforced — if  it  be  possible  to  reinforce  it — by  the 
answer  in  the  Larger  Catechism  to  Question  139:  "What  are 
the  sins  forbidden  in  the  seventh  commandment?  Answer: 
The  sins  forbidden  in  the  seventh  commandment,  besides  the 
neglect  of  the  duties  required,  are  adultery,  fornication, 
&c.  *  *  *  having  more  wives  or  husbands  than  one  at 
the  same  time''  &c. 

Here  then  we  see  in  perfectly  plain  language  that  the  con- 
stitution of  the  Presbyterian  Church  unconditionally  con- 
demns as  sinful  simultaneous  polygamy.  Of  course  the  pro- 
visions of  this  constitution  are  applicable  to  all  the  members 


of  the  church,  and  the  officers  of  the  church  are  in  terms 
under  solemn  covenant  obligations  "to  be  zealous  and  faith- 
ful in  maintaining  the  truths  of  the  gospel  and  the  purity 
and  peace  of  the  church"  of  whose  system  of  doctrine,  govern- 
ment, and  discipline,  they  have  avowed  their  approval  when 
ordained  to  their  official  relations  to  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
whatever  persecution  or  opposition  may  arise  unto  them  on 
that  account.  The  courts  of  the  church,  the  Session,  the 
Presbytery,  the  Synod,  and  the  General  Assembly  are  com- 
posed of  ordained  men  under  these  sacred  vows  and  obligations 
of  allegiance  to  this  church  constitution.  And  as  polygamy 
is  explicitly  set  forth  in  this  constitution  among  the  sins 
forbidden  in  the  seventh  commandment,  no  church  officer 
or  church  court  can  countenance  or  tolerate  this  sinful  prac- 
tice in  the  church  or  by  its  members  without  being  guilty  of 
bad  faith  and  flagrant  disloyalty.  So  long  as  the  constitution 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  remains  as  it  is,  a  session,  a 
minister,  or  even  a  General  Assembly  has  no  rightful  power 
to  admit  a  polygamist  to  church  membership  or  to  tolerate 
such  an  one  in  the  church,  unless  unconditionally  renounc- 
ing and  abandoning  his  or  her  polygamy.  To  do  so  is  to 
trample  that  constitution  under  foot  and  to  set  its  administra- 
tion at  naught.  If  this  constitution  be  ignored  or  set  at 
defiance  by  the  highest  authority  and  court  of  the  church 
then  the  government  of  the  church  resolves  itself,  quoad  hoc, 
into  a  despotism,  unless  a  newly  constituted  General  Assem- 
bly cure  the  fault  by  a  new  and  reformatory  deliverance. 
To  give  an  illustration  without  invidiousness :  When  the 
Northern  General  Assembly,  in  war  times,  followed  up  the 
Spring  Resolutions,  and  finally  took  possesion  of  the  Walnut 
Street  Church  property,  Louisville,  Ky.,  on  a  court  decision 


28 

which  set  aside  the  restraints  and  limitations  of  the  church 
constitution  and  accepted  in  its  place  the  discretionary  de- 
liverances of  the  General  Assembly  as  supreme;  this  substi- 
tution of  the  discretion  of  the  General  Asembly,  in  the  place 
of  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  fact  and 
effect  converted  that  Assembly  into  a  despotism.  And,  as  a 
matter  of  history,  there  it  now  stands  in  law,  and  must  stand 
historically  there  till  the  feat  of  ecclesiastical  transformation 
anarchy  be  renounced,  disclaimed  and  repudiated.  In- 
deed there  is  now  no  barrier  so  serious  as  this  to  the  union  of 
the  Northern  and  Southern  churches.  We  shall  soon  see  that 
the  Southern  General  Assembly  of  1904,  in  Mobile,  in  deal- 
ing with  the  overture  on  polygamy  from  the  Chesapeake 
Presbytery,  one  of  the  constituent  courts  of  that  body,  by 
sanctioning  polygamy  in  the  mission  churches  did,  not  only 
what  it  had  no  right  to  do,  but  what  the  constitution  posi- 
tively restrains  it  from  doing,  and  thereby  resolved  itself 
quoad  hoc  into  a  despotic  body.  And  there  our  General 
Assembly  now  stands  and  must  stand  till  that  deliverance  is 
changed. 

I  am  perfectly  aware  of  the  gravity  of  this  charge  of  arro- 
gated despotism  by  virtue  of  violating  the  constitution  in 
tolerating  what  that  constitution  denounces  as  sin.  But  it  is 
the  inevitable  conclusion,  however,  from  valid  and  indisputa- 
ble premises.  And  no  personal  criticism  or  abuse  will  rem- 
edy it ;  and  no  self-respecting  and  faithful  officer  or  member 
of  the  church,  when  his  attention  has  been  once  called  to  it, 
should  rest  content  till  the  Assembly  unequivocally  extricate 
itself  from  this  unlawful  and  lamentable  attitude  and  all  its 
revolutionary  and  degrading  consequences.  As  a  church  we 
cannot  afford  to  abide  by  that  radical  and  suicidal  decision. 


29 

The  General  Assembly  has  no  power  to  admit  polygamy 
into  the  church,  nor  to  continue  or  to  tolerate  it  therein; 
much  less  has  it  power  to  authorize  others  to  do  so,  whether 
missionaries  or  mission  church  sessions.  The  Presbyterian 
Church  is  a  close  constitutional  organization  and  not  a  lax 
discretionary  body.  Yet  this  authorization  is  precisely  what 
was  done,  or  attempted  to  be  done,  by  the  Assembly  of  1904, 
when  it  declined  to  take  any  notice  of  polygamy  in  the  Luebo 
Church,  Africa,  after  its  attention  had  been  called  to  it  as  a 
state  of  fact  by  an  overture  from  one  of  its  constituent  Pres- 
byteries. The  solemn  appeal  of  this  church  court  was  ig- 
nored and  set  at  naught.  The  attempt  that  has  been  several 
times  made  to  relieve  this  action  of  the  General  Assembly 
of  its  odiousness  by  divesting  the  overture  thus  presented 
of  its  dignity  and  claim  to  consideration  as  the  deliverance 
of  a  Presbytery,  by  invidiously  holding  up  an  individual — 
myself  by  name — as  responsible  for  it,  is  a  willful  and  un- 
worthy perversion  of  the  truth  of  the  case.  This  misrepre- 
sentation was  made  in  the  columns  of  the  Christian  Observer, 
May  4,  1904,  before  the  overture  reached  the  General  As- 
sembly; and  it  was  never  corrected  in  those  columns,  I  be- 
lieve. 

CHRISTIAN  OBSERVER,  MAY  4,  1904. 

"CHESAPEAKE. 

"The  Presbytery  of  Chesapeake,  on  April  20, 
adopted  an  overture  by  a  majority  of  two  on  a  re- 
corded vote  by  ayes  and  nays,  on  the  subject  of  polyg- 
amy, asking  the  Assembly  to  direct  all  missionaries 
to  refuse  church  membership  to  all  converted  polyg- 
amists  in  heathen  lands,  until  they  repudiate  all 
their  wives,  except  the  first  one.  Dr.  Pitzer,  for  him- 


30 

self  and  others  like  minded,  filed  with  the  moderator 
this  protest: 

"The  undersigned  hereby  protests  against  the 
action  of  the  Presbytery,  in  the  adoption  of  an  over- 
ture to  the  General  Assembly  on  the  subject  of  polyg- 
amy. 

"1.  Said  overture  did  not  originate  in  the  Pres- 
bytery itself,  but  was  introduced,  a b  extra,  by  Rev. 
S.  S.  Laws,  a  member  of  a  different  Presbytery,  who 
had  been  invited  to  'sit  and  deliberate  as  a  corre- 
sponding member.' 

"2.  On  the  general  subject  of  polygamy  the  mind 
of  the  Church  is  settled,  and  there  is  no  need  of  any 
deliverance  by  the  General  Assembly. 

"3.  So  far  as  this  subject  is  a  practical  one  in  our 
mission  fields,  it  is  not  a  question  of  the  law  of  mar- 
riage, but  the  law  of  divorce.  'Shall  the  converted 
polygamist  in  heathen  lands,  in  order  to  church 
membership,  be  required  to  "put  away"  his  wives, 
except  the  first  one?' 

"Such  a  requirement  is  without  any  authority 
from  the  word  of  God,  and  its  enactment  by  the 
General  Assembly  would  be  both  ultra  scriptural  and 
injurious. 

"(Signed)  A.  W.  PITZER." 

The  same  thing  has  again  been  recently  attempted  in  thp 
Presbyterian  Standard,  which  published  the  following  re- 
sponse : 

"POLYGAMY  IN  THE  CHURCH. 

"I  have  just  received  the  Standard  of  February  21, 
1906?  and  notice  a  communication  from  Rev.  W.  R. 
Coppedge,  of  Hamlet,  N.  C.,  containing  two  mistakes 
which  seem  to  me  to  call  for  correction. 

"1.  He  represents  the  overture  on  Polygamy, 
which  was  before  the  General  Assembly  of  1904,  as 


31 

confined  to  'our  mission  in  Africa/  whereas  it  is  now 
converted  into  an  'omnibus  bill'  to  'accomplish  the 
same  thing.'  This  is  a  misstatement  of  fact.  The 
overture  before  the  General  Assembly  of  1904  is 
identically  the  same  as  the  overture  on  its  way  to  the 
Assembly  now  from  the  Synod  of  Virginia,  except 
a  single  clause  of  five  words,  to-wit,  'in  conjugal  rela- 
tions with  him,'  added  to  the  paragraph  'first  wife 
still  living.'  The  two  overtures  otherwise  are  in  all 

respects  identically  the  same. 

*  *  *  *  *  *  * 

"2.  This  is  serious  enough,  as  it  implies  double 
dealing,  but  the  other  point  which  I  propose  to 
notice,  without  going  at  all  into  the  merits  of  the 
question,  is  his  discourteous  and  offensive  attempt  to 
divest  the  overture  as  it  went  before  the  1904  Assem- 
bly of  its  force  and  dignity  as  the  deliverance  of  a 
church  court  and  to  saddle  it  on  an  individual.  As 
matter  of  fact,  the  Presbytery  that  sent  up  the  over- 
ture in  1904  did  so  after  full  discussion,  by  a  vote  of 
fifteen  for  it  to  eight  against  it.  That  made  it  the 
overture  of  one  of  the  constituent  courts  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly.  The  transmutation  attempted  is  an 
injustice  to  the  court  and  personally  offensive.  Did 
the  reverend  brother  deliberately  intend  this?  I  feel 
reluctant  to  think  so,  for  the  least  that  could  be  said  of 

it  would  be  that  'it's  ungentlemanly.' 

*  *  *  *  *  *         * 

"S.  S.  LAWS. 
"WASHINGTON,  D.  C,  Feb.  23,  1906." 

I  will  now  give  the  action  of  the  Assembly  of  1904.     I 
quote  from  the  minutes,  pp.  50-51  : 

"The  following  report  from  the  Committee  on  Bills 
and  Overtures  was  adopted: 

"In  answer  to  an  overture  from  Chesapeake  Presby- 
tery, in  reference  to  Polygamy,  asking  the  General 


32 

Assembly  to  make  a  deliverance  on  the  subject,  in  its 
relation  to  the  work  of  our  missionaries  in  our  foreign 
fields — 

"We  recommend  the  following:  In  view  of  the  fact 
that  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  unalterably  opposed 
to  polygamy,  and  would  not,  under  any  circum- 
stances, tolerate  the  entrance  into  polygamous  rela- 
tions of  any  of  its  members,  even  in  heathen  lands, 
and  in  view  of  the  great  care  of  our  Executive  Com- 
mittee of  Foreign  Missions  in  appointing  to  the  work 
in  foreign  lands  only  workers  of  piety  and  discretion, 
we  deem  it  unnecessary  to  make  any  deliverance  on 
this  subject.7' 

As  soon  as  some  notices  of  this  deliverance  are  given,  the 
overture  from  the  Chesapeake  Presbytery  will  be  submitted. 
Let  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  when  the  overture  was  sent  up 
by  the  Chesapeake  Presbytery  there  never  had  been  a  deliver- 
ance on  this  subject  by  our  General  Assembly,  and  hence,  to 
the  extent  that  there  was  any  provocation  of  criticism  touch- 
ing this  matter  of  polygamous  membership  in  our  church, 
it  was  entirely  due  to  individual  or  local  discretion,  or  rather 
indiscretion,  whereas  the  overture,  without  one  word  or  inti- 
mation of  censure  of  an  individual  or  a  church  as  to  what 
had  been  done,  proposed  to  stop  further  admissions,  and  to 
prompt  the  discipline  of  the  church  authorities  to  relieve  the 
church  of  those  polygamists  already  in  it.  Whilst  I  was  ad- 
dressing the  Synod  of  Virginia  on  this  subject,  a  member 
(Dr.  A.  L.  Phillips)  asked  me  if  the  Book  of  Discipline  did 
not  make  sufficient  provision  for  dealing  with  polygamy? 
He  was  answered,  it  ought  to  do  so  and  I  presume  it  does. 
Of  course,  within  its  sphere  the  Discipline  does;  but  Disci- 
pline deals  only  with  church  members  and  has  nothing  to  do 


33 

with  those  outside  the  church,  in  excluding  from  entrance  or 
admitting  them  into  the  church.  If  the  door  of  the  church 
is  closed  against  polygamy,  so  that  no  more  polygamists  can 
enter  the  church  until  they  have  renounced  their  polygamy, 
then  Discipline  will  take  care  of  and  rid  the  church  of  those 
already  in  the  church  (Discipline,  ch.  3:  1,  2).  The  over- 
ture provided  for  both  these  alternatives, — keeping  them  out 
and  removing  those  already  within — and  its  adoption  would 
have  saved  our  church  from  the  disgrace  which  has  come 
upon  it  as  the  result  of  the  Assembly's  action  at  Mobile,  1904. 
For,  without  a  word  of  disapproval,  it  acquiesced,  in  the  name 
of  our  whole  church,  in  the  recognition  of  a  number  of  men 
and  women  as  in  good  and  regular  standing  as  communicants 
who  are  actually  living  in  the  church  in  licentious  and  sinful 
polygamy. 

This  action  of  the  General  Assembly  is  virtually  an  apol- 
ogy for  polygamy.  Suppose  that  Paul,  when  he  learned 
that  that  unnamed  man  at  Corinth — just  one — had  married 
his  stepmother,  had  fallen  back  like  this  Assembly  on  gen- 
eral principles,  and  responded  to  the  messengers  of  the 
church  who  went  to  Ephesus  to  see  him  on  this  subject,  that  he 
had  full  faith  in  the  "piety  and  discretion"  of  those  Christian 
brethren  in  charge  of  the  church  at  Corinth  and  that  he  there- 
fore deemed  it  unnecessary  to  take  any  notice  of  the  informa- 
tion given.  Were  that  the  record  of  this  case  at  Corinth, 
would  we  not  blush  for  shame;  nay,  would  not  this  stately 
and  complacent  attitude  of  tolerance,  indifference,  and 
neglect,  not  even  advising  respecting  the  treatment  of  such 
offences,  have  wrecked  not  only  that  infant  church, 
but  Christianity  itself?  But  would  not  Paul  have  de- 
served credit  for  defending  the  pious  brethren  in 
3 


34 

charge!  The  polygamy  case  before  the  General  Assembly 
of  1904  is  a  more  aggravated  case  of  sin,  openly  and  licen- 
tiously practiced  by  a  number  of  members  of  the  church, 
than  was  the  case  of  incest  at  Corinth.  And  the  committee 
whose  report  was  adopted  was  aware  of  the  situation.  In  the 
constitution  of  our  church,  incest  and  polygamy  are  classed 
with  fornication,  adultery,  and  the  like,  on  the  authority  of 
God's  word,  as  sins,  and  the  Synod  of  Virginia  condemns  it  as 
a  sin  and  our  courts  as  a  high  crime.  Polygamy  is  as  foul  a 
sin  as  incest,  measured  by  the  standard  of  God  or  man.  There 
is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  that  this  case  of  incest  at  Corinth 
was  not  a  sin  of  ignorance  as  real  as  any  case  of  polygamy  in 
Africa  or  China.  Moreover,  as  this  incestuous  sinner  in  the 
Corinthian  church  found  his  sympathizers  and  apologists, 
just  so  do  polygamous  sinners  in  the  church  in  our  day  and 
in  our  church;  especially  is  this  the  case,  we  are  told,  with 
those  who  have  been  admitted  to  the  church.  Certain  of  our 
own  missionaries  are  known  as  advocating  the  baptism  and 
toleration  of  polygamists  in  our  mission  churches  (Painter, 
White,  Morrison,  Dubose,  J.  E.  Stuart  et  al.) 

But  there  is  a  lesson  for  us  in  what  Paul  did.  He  indulged 
no. tolerance  whatever,  but  ordered:  "Put  away  the  wicked 
man  from  among  yourselves."  "Know  ye  not  that  a  little 
leaven  leaveneth  the  whole  lump?"  "Being  gathered  to- 
gether in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  deliver  such  a  one  unto 
Satan"  (1  Cor.  v :  4,  5,  6, 13) .  What  could  more  thoroughly 
refute  the  plausible  but  shallow  and  fallacious  crotchet  that 
no  church  member  may  be  allowed  to  enter  into  a  sinful  rela- 
tion (e.g.,  polygamy),  but  any  one  already  in  that  sinful 
relation  may  be  allowed  to  continue  in  it. 

There  is  no  ecclesiastical  tender-footedness  nor  cowardice 


35 

in  this  uncompromising  intolerance  of  Paul;  no  paltering 
with  sin,  nor  connivance  at  the  misconduct  of  church  officers 
who  may  have  been  implicated.  "If  ye  have  respect  of  per- 
sons— approve  in  one  what  you  condemn  in  another — ye 
commit  sin."  "My  brethren,  these  things  ought  not  so  to  be. 
Doth  the  fountain  send  forth  from  the  same  opening  sweet 
water  and  bitter?"  "Purify  your  hearts,  ye  double-minded" 
(James  ii:  9;  iii:  10-11;  iv:  8).  All  leaven,  new  and  old,  is 
to  be  cast  out. 

CHAPTER  V. 

ARTICLES  TO  NEWSPAPERS. 

"STANDARD/' 

June  22,  1904,  soon  after  the  adjournment  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  1904,  the  following  notice  of  its  action  appeared 
in  the  Presbyterian  Standard,  published  at  Charlotte,  N.  C., 
and  in  a  sense  the  organ  of  the  Synod  of  that  State : 

"POLYGAMY  AND  THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY. 
(Answer  to  Chesapeake  Presbytery.) 

"Editor  Standard: 

"In  answer  to  an  overture  from  Chesapeake  Presby- 
tery, in  reference  to  polygamy,  asking  the  General 
Assembly  to  make  a  deliverance  on  the  subject,  in  its 
relations  to  the  work  of  our  missionaries,  in  our  for- 
eign fields. 

"We  recommend  the  following  answer  to  the  over- 
ture from  the  Presbytery  of  Chesapeake: 

"In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Presbyterian  Church 
is  unalterably  opposed  to  polygamy,  and  would  not 
under  any  circumstances  tolerate  the  entrance  into 
polygamous  relations  of  any  of  its  members,  even  in 
heathen  lands,  and  in  view  of  the  great  care  of  our 


36 

Executive  Committee  of  Foreign  Missions  in  appoint- 
ing to  the  work  in  foreign  fields  only  workers  of  piety 
and  discretion,  we  deem  it  unnecessary  to  make  any 
deliverance  on  this  subject.  (Minutes,  pp.  50,  51.) 

"From  The  Presbyterian  Standard  of  June  1st, 
which  came  to-day,  I  learn  of  the  answer  given  above. 
This  answer  is  so  inadequate  and  fallacious  that  it 
should  not  be  allowed  to  pass  without  notice.  Will 
you  allow  the  following  notice  of  it?  Of  course  it  is 
taken  for  granted  that  the  committee  is  therein  cor- 
rectly reported,  and  that  the  General  Assembly 
adopted  it. 

"1.  The  general  statement  of  the  purport  of  the 
overture  is  not  correctly  given.  It  was  not  limited  to 
foreign  lands,  but  explicitly  related  to  polygamy  in 
our  own  land  among  our  Indians,  Mormon  citizens, 
and  also  in  our  island  possessions,  as  well  as  in  foreign 
lands. 

"2.  Again :  The  overture  did  not  ask  for  a  deliver- 
ance against  'entrance  into  polygamous'  relation,  but 
against  the  admission  of  polygamists — those  already 
in  polygamous  relations — into  the  church.  As  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  which  cannot  be  denied,  polygamists  have 
been  admitted  into  our  church  connection,  and  are 
now  communicants  in  our  church,  under  the  very 
eyes  of  our  Executive  Committee  of  Foreign  Missions 
and  in  spite  of  the  'piety  and  discretion'  of  the  work- 
ers this  heathen  abomination  has  been  admitted  into 
and  is  now  tolerated  in  our  church.  The  indisputa- 
ble testimony  is  'many  members  of  the  church  have 
as  many  as  two  wives.'  This  is  one  of  our  own 
churches  which  is  thus  reported. 

"And  yet  the  General  Assembly  is  allowed  by  the 
committee  sleepily  to  ignore  this  notorious  state  of 
fact.  And  unless  our  General  Assembly  proposes  to 
solemnly  sanction  this  glaring  outrage  on  the  decen- 


37 

cies  and  duties  of  our  church,  the  only  rectification 
of  the  evil  is  quietly  left  without  a  word  of  admoni- 
tion to  the  'piety  and  discretion7  of  the  very  brethren 
who — it  is  hard  to  believe  it — have  actually  received 
into  the  bosom  of  the  church  this  foul  adultery  and 
hold  it  in  fraternal  intimacy.  No  argument  from 
scripture,  custom,  or  sentiment  can  be  validly  pleaded 
in  justification. 

"3.  For  the  Committee  of  Bills  and  Overtures  to 
report,  in  view  of  this  condition  of  things,  that  'we 
deem  it  unnecessary  to  make  any  deliverance  on  this 
subject/  is  simply  astonishing,  considering  that  our 
General  Assembly  has  never  made  a  deliverance  on 
this  subject,  whereas  the  actual  practice  of  admitting 
polygamists  into  the  church  has  sprung  up,  and 
'many'  polygamists  are  now  in  the  communion  of  our 
church.  The  committee  was  aware  of  this  existence 
of  polygamy  in  our  church,  for  I  myself  sent  the  pub- 
lished fact  to  the  chairman  in  a  glaring  newspaper 
article  arraigning  our  church,  with  this  heading  in 
large  capitals— POLYGAMOUS  PRESBYTERIANS. 

"This  is  no  slander,  but  a  shameful  and  disgraceful 
fact,  which  has  been  announced  to  audiences  in 
various  parts  of  our  country  by  a  returned  missionary. 

"Mr.  Editor,  I  shall  not  say  more  now,  but  this  sub- 
ject cannot  be  disposed  of  in  this  way.  The  attempt 
was  made  to  choke  this  overture  before  it  reached  the 
General  Assembly,  by  false  and  unjust  representation, 
in  The  Christian  Observer.  It  was  published  that  the 
overture  was  passed  by  only  two  majority,  whereas 
the  vote,  after  a  full  discussion,  was  eight  against  it 
and  fifteen  for  it ;  arid  the  same  party  who  made  this 
misrepresentation  should  have  known  better,  as  he 
spoke  and  voted  in  the  negative,  and  he  also  did  what 
he  could  to  divest  it  of  the  prestige  of  an  action  of  the 
Presbytery  thus:  'This  overture,'  wrote  he,  'did  hot 


38- 

originate  in  the  Presbytery  itself,  but  was  introduced, 
a b  extra,  by  Rev.  S.  S.  Laws,  a  member  of  a  different 
Presbytery,  who  had  been  invited  to  sit  and  deliberate 
as  a  corresponding  member.'  I  explained  that  my 
expectation  of  introducing  it  into  my  own  Presbytery, 
.  which  I  had  attended  a  few  days  previously,  was  frus- 
trated by  an  unexpected  adjournment.  I  was  re- 
quested to  bring  it  into  the  Chesapeake  Presbytery. 
This  was  accepted  as  adequate.  No  liberty  was  taken 
and  there  was  no  irregularity  in  its  introduction. 
And  such  a  criticism  of  the  rights  and  privileges  of 
a  corresponding  member  is  a  pronounced  piece  of 
ecclesiastical  discourtesy  and  injustice.  It  is  because 
my  name  has  been  gratuitously  dragged  before  the 
public  in  this  matter  that  I  have  spoken. 

"No;  this  overture  on  polygamy  was  in  good  faith, 
a  regularly  enacted  overture  of  the  Chesapeake  Pres- 
bytery ;  and,  as  I  have  shown,  it  was  entitled  to  a  more 
serious  consideration  and  to  a  more  pertinent  answer 
than  it  received. 

"The  church  is  not  done  with  it.  A  matter  of  this 
sort  is  never  settled  till  it  is  settled  right. 

"S.  S.  LAWS." 

June  29,  1904,  the  following  notice  of  these  proceedings 
appeared  in  The  Central  Presbyterian,  published  at  Rich- 
mond, Va. : 

"POLYGAMY  AND  THE  SOUTHERN  GENERAL 
ASSEMBLY. 

"Editor  Central  Presbyterian: 

"On  the  21st  day  of  last  March,  an  article  appeared 
in  the  Washington  City  Post,  one  of  the  most  widely 
circulated  and  influential  secular  papers  of  our  coun- 
try, with  the  bold  heading  in  large  caps,  Tolyga- 


39 

mous  Presbyterians.'  The  declaration  was  the  more 
startling  because  of  the  excitement  of  this  com- 
munity over  the  Senate  committee's  examination  of 
the  Mormon  Smoot  case,  in  which  it  had  just  been 
brought  out  that  'the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith/  the 
present  President  of  the  Mormons,  is  now  actually 
living  with  five  wives,  by  whom  he  has  forty-two  liv- 
ing children;  and  the  authority  given  for  the  above 
classification  of  Presbyterians  with  Mormons  was  the 
declaration  of  the  Rev.  W.  M.  Morrison,  a  returned 
missionary  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church  from 
Africa,  in  a  discourse  in  Dr.  Pitzer's  Southern  church 
in  this  city.  It  was  given  as  the  very  language  of  this 
missionary  that  'many  members  of  the  church  have 
as  many  as  two  wives.'  I  supposed  there  must  be 
some  mistake,  such  as  secular  papers  are,  without  evil 
intent,  liable  to  make  in  ecclesiastical  matters,  and  I 
started  out  to  make  correction.  But  in  a  few  days 
Dr.  Snyder,  the  returned  missionary  of  our  church, 
was  a  guest  at  my  house,  and  I  learned  that  the  charge 
of  polygamy  against  the  Southern  Presbyterian 
Church  is  absolutely  true.  And  this  condition,  I 
learn,  has  been  published  not  only  from  the  pulpit 
here,  but  in  various  places.  [It  appeared,  then,  that 
it  was  not  the  newspapers,  but  the  church,  that  needed 
correction.] 

"The  circumstance  thus  given  was  the  special  occa- 
sion of  the  Chesapeake  overture  to  which  the  answer 
of  the  General  Assembly  is  published  in  The  Central 
Presbyterian  of  June  8th,  just  received. 

"Allow  me  to  submit  four  serious  criticisms  of  the 
so-called  'answer  to  an  overture  from  the  Chesapeake 
Presbytery' : 

"1.  It  represents  the  overture  as  asking  for  a  de- 
liverance on  polygamy  'in  its  relations  to  the  work 
of  our  missionaries  in  our  foreign  fields.'  There  is 


40 

no  such  limitation  in  the  overture.  It  recites  that 
polygamy  confronts  us  on  the  part  of  Mormon  citizens, 
North  and  South,  and  of  our  Indians  under  the  care 
of  the  Domestic  Mission  Committee,  and  in  our  island 
possessions,  as  well  as  in  foreign  fields ;  and  a  deliver- 
ance was  asked  for  covering  the  world-wide  case. 
(Ignoratio  elenchi.) 

"2.  Again:  The  answer  is  very  pronounced  about 
'entrance'  into  the  polygamous  relation:  whereas  the 
overture  confines  attention  to  the  course  to  be  pursued 
towards  those  already  in  polygamous  relations — shall 
polygamists  be  baptized  and  received  into  church 
communion,  as  is  the  present  practice,  we  are  told  by 
some  of  our  returned  missionaries.  This  is  the  inex- 
cusable fallacy  of  changing  premises,  or  more  plainly, 
of  evasion,  whether  designed  or  inadvertent. 

"3.  In  the  next  place,  the  appeal  to  the  'piety  and 
discretion'  of  our  workers  as  sufficiently  safeguarding 
the  work,  is  resting  on  a  broken  reed,  for  it  is  these 
very  workers  who  have  taken  this  abomination  into 
the  bosom  of  the  church.  It  behooves  us  to  insist 
that  those  who  have  taken  the  responsibilty  of  foisting 
this  practice  into  the  mission  work  of  our  Southern 
Church,  can  find  no  adequate  justification  in  the 
equivocal  and  unscriptural  practice  of  others.  The 
only  alternative  left  the  church  is  the  repudiation  of 
this  unauthorized  practice. 

"4.  And  finally,  the  fact  that  this  practice  has  been 
taken  on  by  the  missionaries  and  committees  without 
asking  the  advice  even  of  the  General  Assembly,  and 
the  further  fact  that  our  Southern  Church  has  never 
made  a  deliverance  on  the  subject,  emphasized  the 
importance  and  moral  necessity  under  the  circum- 
stances of  a  decided  and  unequivocal  deliverance  of 
disapproval. 

"It  may  be  relied  on  that  this  subject  cannot  be 


41 

permanently  ignored,  and  that  it  will  not  down  till 
it  is  settled  in  accordance  with  Matthew  xix:  3-12, 
and  Mark  x:  2-12,  where  the  Saviour  sinks  his  shaft 
down  to  bed  rock  and  appeals  to  the  historic  fact  of 
creation  as  giving  rise  to  the  law  of  nature  which 
governs  the  conjugal  relation  as  established  by  the 
Creator  between  one  man  and  one  woman.  This  law 
of  nature,  as  illustrated  in  the  equal  births  of  the 
sexes,  is  binding  on  heathen  as  well  as  Christians, 
so  that  all  the  women  with  whom  any  man  may  have 
sexual  relations  other  than  his  one  wife,  are  merely 
concubines.  The  relations,  therefore,  are  adulterous, 
and  the  church  can  do  no  less  than  enforce  the  law 
of  Christ  and  require  the  abandonment  of  adultery. 

"  Teople  speak  about  the  rights  of  the  polygamist 
to  enter  the  church.  Has  a  polygamist  no  right  to 
enter?  they  say.  Certainly  he  has,  but  he  has  no 
right  to  bring  his  polygamy  with  him.  The  door  of 
the  Christian  church  is  wide  enough  and  high  enough 
to  let  in  any  man  who  wants  to  come  in,  but  the  door 
has  never  been  built  wide  or  high  enough  to  let  in  a 
man  who  brings  polygamy  with  him  on  his  back  or  in 
his  heart.  *  *  *  I  say,  let  the  polygamist  come  in, 
but  let  him  leave  his  polygamy  behind  him.' — 
(Robert  E.  Speer,  Secretary  Board  of  Foreign  Mis- 
sions, Presbyterian  Church  U.  S.  A.,  Ecumenical  Con- 
ference, Vol.  II,  page  287.) 

"Such  must  be  the  judgment  of  our  church,  and 
this  overture  sought  to  evoke  its  utterance  in  rescuing 
our  church  from  a  blighting  disgrace.  It  is  not  pos- 
sible for  those  abroad  to  understand  this  subject  any 
better  than  we  do  at  home.  This  foul  demon  must 
be  exorcised. 

"S.  S.  LAWS. 
"WASHINGTON,  D.  0." 


42 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Maryland  Presbytery  the  follow- 
ing action  was  recorded — I  did  not  write  it,  but  voted  for  it. 

"REPORT  ON  MINUTES  or  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY,  1904. 

"Recommendation. 

"1.  That  the  Presbytery  of  Maryland  take  excep- 
tion to  the  action  of  the  General  Assembly  at  Mobile, 
Ala.,  in  its  answer  to  the  overture  of  Chesapeake  Pres- 
bytery on  the  subject  of  polygamy,  inasmuch  as  the 
Assembly's  answer  does  not,  apparently,  touch  the 
point  raised  in  the  overture  (vide  Min.  Assem.,  p. 
50). 

"Adopted." 

The  overture  itself  to  which  the  General  Assembly  makes 
reference  in  the  above  action  quoted  from  the  minutes  of 
1904,  was  not  published  in  its  minutes  nor  in  any  of  the 
church  papers;  and  consequently  the  members  and  even  the 
ministers  of  the  church  were  not  in  possession  of  the  means 
necessary  to  form  an  intelligent  and  judicious  opinion  of  the 
merits  of  the  Assembly's  action  at  Mobile.  Indeed,  the  repre- 
sentation was  made,  and  the  minutes  seemed  to  favor  it,  that 
the  overture  was  an  "attack"  on  our  foreign  missionaries,  and 
that  the  Assembly  had  piously  made  its  deliverance  in  their 
defense.*  A  more  gratuitous  and  mendacious  slander  could 
not  have  been  concocted,  for  no  individual  and  no  station, 
nor  church,  was  named  in  the  overture.  Not  even  the  fact 
that  there  were  polygamists  in  some  of  our  foreign  churches 
was  mentioned  in  the  overture.  This  fact,  however,  with  the 
indisputable  evidence,  was  made  known  to  the  Chairman  of 
the  Committee  of  Bills  and  Overtures,  and  to  the  committee, 
therefore,  whose  business  it  was  to  formulate  the  response  of 

*This  was  stated  in  print  by  the  penman  of  the  Assembly's  action. 


43 

the  Assembly  to  such  documents.  There  were  several  present 
in  the  Assembly  who  well  knew  the  facts,  though  the  Assem- 
bly as  a  body  seemed  to  act  in  ignorance  of  the  actual  situa- 
tion, which  had  occasioned  the  overture.  Otherwise,  if  the 
body  knew  the  facts,  it  must  have  been  deliberately  though 
vainly  imagined  that  by  ignoring  the  overture,  the  disagree- 
able subject  would  be  squelched !  Subsequently,  on  the  floor 
of  the  Synod  of  Virginia  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  of 
Bills  and  Overtures  of  the  Assembly  of  1904,  declared  that  his 
committee  had  full  information  on  the  subject  and  that  my 
letter  to  him  was  received  and  read  and  that  the  action  of  the 
committee  in  formulating  the  above-quoted  minute  was  de- 
liberate and  after  full  consideration.  This,  I  confess,  some- 
what surprised  me,  for  I  had  been  making,  in  my  own  mind, 
no  small  allowance  for  the  extraordinary  character  of  the  de- 
liverance on  the  score  of  lack  of  information,  of  inadvertence 
and  perhaps  diversion  of  attention  from  the  subject  by  the 
perturbed  condition  arising  out  of  the  noted  telegram  from 
Buffalo  falling  into  the  body  at  that  time  like  a  thunderbolt 
from  a  clear  sky. 

But  I  must  reiterate  that,  however  well  informed  the 
committee  may  have  been,  the  body  seemed  to  act  in  the 
dark.  I  received  a  letter  from  one  of  the  officials  of  the  As- 
sembly, a  dear  friend  and  a  wide-awake  man,  expressing  the 
hope  that  the  disposition  made  of  the  Mormon  case  was  satis- 
factory to  me !  I  have  always  felt  that  what  escaped  the  keen 
lynx-eyed  vision  of  that  commissioner  could  not  have  been 
well  understood  on  the  floor.  Besides,  friends  in  attendance 
confirmed  the  view  now  expressed.  And  the  circumstances 
now  mentioned  must  be  taken  account  of,  with  other  consid- 
erations, relative  to  the  renewal  of  the  overture  which  had 


44 

been  ignored,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  explain  it  as  we  may,  for 
the  committee  recommended  the  unfortunate  minute  which 
was  adopted  and  now  stands  on  the  record. 

The  reason  for  the  reserve  mentioned  in  not  using  names 
was  the  desire  of  not  publishing  the  matter  any  more  widely, 
and  the  hope  that  by  the  adoption  of  the  overture  the  whole 
matter  would  be  blown  over  and  be  hushed.  In  all  sim- 
plicity, my  surprise  was  such  because  I  supposed  that  on  the 
attention  of  the  General  Assembly  being  called  to  the  matter 
a  decided  deliverance  would  at  once  be  made  without  dis- 
cussion, and  thus  the  case  would  be  closed.  The  idea  of  my 
name  being  brought  into  the  discussion  of  the  subject  never 
occurred  to  me,  and  I  insist  that  it  was  gratuitous  and  un- 
kind. But  it  seemed  manifestly  the  duty  of  somebody  to 
take  the  initiative. 

But  as  the  General  Assembly  avowedly  made  no  answer  to 
the  overture,  though  it  did  formulate  a  deliverance  on  the 
subject  of  the  overture,  the  way  seemed  to  be  clear  for  the 
renewal  of  the  overture.  Let  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  this 
overture,  before  the  Assembly  of  1904,  was  sent  up  by  the 
Chesapeake  Presbytery,  after  a  serious  debate  and  by  a  vote 
of  15  for  it  to  8  against  it;  but  before  it  reached  the  Assem- 
bly, it  was  attacked  and  misrepresented  by  a  correspondent 
in  the  columns  of  The  Christian  Observer  as  not  properly  an 
overture  of  the  Potomac  Presbytery,  and  as  having  had  only 
two  majority,  as  agitating  a  question  settled  in  the  church, 
and  as  contrary  to  the  word  of  God.  This  unrelieved  batch 
of  rude,  crude  and  uncorrected  misrepresentations  doubtless 
had  its  pernicious  influence.  And,  then,  certain  returned 
missionaries,  whom  I  need  not  name,  had  industriously 
busied  themselves  in  discrediting  the  overture  as  an  attack 


45 

on  the  foreign  missionary  and  the  cause  of  foreign  missions, 
whereas  the  overture  aims  to  defend  all  mission  work,  home 
or  foreign,  against  polgyamy.  Is  the  work  of  the  missionary 
exempt  from  criticism,  advice,  or  correction? 

CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  OVERTURE,  WITH  MEMORANDA. 

This  overture  which  was  ignored  by  the  General  Assembly 
of  1904  and  is  now  on  its  way  back  to  that  same  body  to  meet 
1903,  will  now  be  submitted  with  some  expository  memoranda 
intended  to  be  helpful  to  the  apprehension  of  its  exact  im- 
port and  corrective  of  misunderstanding  and  consequent  mis- 
representation and  unreasonable  opposition.  This  overture 
has  been  carelessly  read  and  inexcusably  misrepresented  and 
unreasonably  opposed. 

Correctly  apprehended  and  appreciated,  this  overture  must, 
on  reflection,  commend  itself  to  every  judicious,  intelligent, 
and  thoughtful  member  of  our  church — yes,  I  will  add,  and 
of  the  Christian  world,  including  all  denominations — for  its 
Scriptural,  supreme  and  sole  aim  is  wholesome  good  order 
and  the  Purity  of  the  Church.  This  idea  of  the  purity  of 
the  church  of  Christ  is  a  fundamental  idea  on  which  all 
the  professed  followers  of  Christ  agree. 

The  overture  is  as  follows : 

An  overture  /rora  the  Synod  of  Virginia  to  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States,  to  meet  in  Greenville,  S.  C.,  May,  1906, 
on  the  subject  of  Polygamy. 

Whereas,  The  missionaries  of  our  church  are  con- 
fronted by  polygamous  sentiments  and  practices  in 


46 

the  States  and  Territories  of  our  country,  North  and 
South,  not  only  by  Mormon  citizens,  but  also  among 
our  Indians,  and  the  inhabitants  of  our  island  posses- 
sions, and  likewise  in  foreign  lands ;  and 

Whereas,  Under  the  light  of  the  gospel  no  man  can 
marry  a  second  wife  while  his  first  wife  is  still  living 
in  conjugal  relation  with  him,  without  offending 
against  the  laws  of  Christ.  Such  relation  is  pro- 
nounced criminal  by  the  United  States  Supreme  Court 
and  other  courts,  although  it  may  be  justified  by 
heathen  custom  and  law  and  be  entered  into  in  igno- 
rance of  the  truth,  yet  it  cannot  be  perpetuated  nor 
connived  at  by  one  who  has  become  a  follower  of 
Christ,  neither  can  it  be  justified  by  the  church; 
therefore,  the  Synod  of  Virginia  solemnly  invokes 
the  General  Assembly  to  make  the  following  deliver- 
ance without  delay,  to-wit: 

1.  That  no  church  under  its  care  shall  be  allowed 
to  tolerate  the  polygamous  or  concubinous  relation  on 
the  part  of  any  of  its  members  whether  in  Christian 
or  in  heathen  lands. 

2.  That  when  any  man  in  polygamous  relation* 
offers  for  membership,  every  wife  except  the  one  first 
married,  if  alive  and  faithful,  shall  be  repudiated. 

3.  That  if  the  so-called  wife  or  wives  thus  repu- 
diated, or  their  children,  or  both,  be  dependent,  then 
the  church  shall  kindly  assist  him  in  their  support, 
if  need  be. 

Converts  from  heathenism  should  be  treated  very 
tenderly  in  this  most  painful  situation,  and  yet  they 
should  be  dealt  with  in  all  fidelity ;  and  when  a  man 
is  called  to  separate  from  all  but  his  first  and  only 
wife,  he  should  be  enjoined  to  make  provision  for 
those  from  whom  he  is  separated  to  the  full  extent  of 
his  ability.  (See  Moore's  Digest,  p.  507.) 

4.  In  like  manner,  any  woman  in  polygamous  or 


47 

polyandrous  relation  shall  abandon  the  same  as  a  con- 
dition of  Christian  communion  and  church  member- 
ship. 

5.  That  the  Committee  on  Home  and  Foreign  Mis- 
sions are  hereby  enjoined  and  ordered  to  promptly 
and  firmly  enforce  this  rule. 

PLEASE  NOTE. 

(1)  The  preamble  shows  that  this  overture  does 
not  confine  attention  to  the  foreign  missions,  but  con- 
templates the  whole  world  wherever  the  gospel  is 
preached  and  polygamy  is  found.     But  the  overture 
is  continually  spoken  of  as  relating  only  to  the  For- 
eign Missions.     Read  the  "Whereas." 

(2)  The  overture  does  not  deal  with  an  abstraction 
or  an  hypothetical  case,  in  thesi,  but  with  an  actual 
state  of  fact,  for  there  are  a  number  of  polygamists  in 
our  churches  in  Africa  and  China,  notably  at  Luebo, 
in  Africa.    The  live  question  before  our  church  which 
this  overture  carries  up  to  the  General  Assembly  of 
1903  is,  whether  still  more  polygamists  shall  be  ad- 
mitted or  the  door  be  closed  against  this  heathen 
abomination,  and  those  already  in  the  church  be  re- 
quired to  renounce  it,  or  by  discipline  be  removed 
from  the  church. 

It  must  amaze  the  most  of  your  readers,  that  there 
should  be  any  doubt  or  hesitation — indeed,  that  there 
should  be  any  occasion  for  such  an  overture.  But  as 
a  sad  matter  of  fact,  the  garments  of  our  church  are 
being  bedraggled  in  the  rnire  and  filth  of  this  foul  and 
intolerable  practice.  Our  missionary  work  thus  con- 
ducted must  collapse  on  our  hands  sooner  or  later. 

(3)  No  steps  have  yet  been  taken  by  the  courts  of 
the  church  toward  the  exclusion  of  those  polygamists 
now  in  our  church,  though  attention  has  been  called 


48 

to  it,  nor  have  the  missionaries  who  admitted  them 
been  restrained  from  admitting  others  at  their  discre- 
tion; they  have  not  even  been  advised  not  to  do -so. 
As  things  now  stand,  who  knows  whereunto  this  thing 
will  grow?  So  that  it  is  now  an  open  question 
whether  the  heathen  are  to  be  Christianized  or  our 
mission  churches  heathenized. 

(4)  All  parties  are  agreed  that  polygamy  is  a  sin, 
and  that  the  polygamous  relation  is  in  violation  of  the 
law  of  monogamy,  which  was  instituted  by  Christ  as 
the  law  of  his  kingdom,  and  hence  it  is  a  sinful  rela- 
tion.    Herein  polygamy  differs  radically  from  slav- 
ery.    The  sacred  Scriptures  regulate  the  duties  which 
spring  out  of  the  relation  of  the  bond-servant  to  his 
master,  but  it  does  not  recognize    moral    duties    as 
springing  out  of  sinful  relations.     The  duty  in  that 
case  is  to  abandon  and  break  up  the  relation.     The 
adulterer  must  separate  from  his  mistress,  or  con- 
cubine. In  the  case  of  incest  at  Corinth,  Paul  took  the 
case  in  hand  and  ordered  that  the  licentious  offender 
should  at  once  be  excommunicated — "delivered  such  a 
one  unto  Satan" — (Read  the  whole  of  1  Cor.  v.)  — 
though  the  corrupt  sentiment    of    the  church  had 
tolerated  it. 

(5)  At  the  creation,  the  conjugal  relation  was  or- 
dained for  the  race  between  one  man  and  one  woman, 
and  it  is  notable  that  conjugal  duties  are  never  recog- 
nized nor  enjoined  except  as  arising  out  of  the  monog- 
amous relation  of  one  man  and  his  wife — never  wives; 
or  woman  and  her  husband — never  husbands.     Jesus 
Christ  lifted  this  natural  law  of  monogamy  binding 
on  all  men  into  the  spiritual  sphere  of  his  church. 

(6)  The  plural  sex  relation  is  one  of  adultery, 
whether  by  man  or  woman.     The  provision  of  the 
overture  is  that  these  adulterous  relations  shall  not  be 
admitted  into  the  church  nor  tolerated  in  it. 


49 

(7)  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  separation  contem- 
plated in  the  overture  has  been  egregiously  misrepre- 
sented as  iron-clad,  harsh,  and  cruel.     There  is  not  a 
word  of  truth  in  such  epithets.     It  is  not  unreason- 
able for  a  man  to  confine  his  attention  as  husband  to 
his  one  wife.     As  to  the  other  women,  it  is  simply,  in 
all  reason  and  decency,  required  of  him  to  discontinue 
cohabitation  with  them ;  but  in  no  manner  to  discon- 
tinue his  support  of  them  and  their  children.     His 
becoming  a  member  of  the  church  would  not  lessen 
his  ability,  and  should  increase  his  disposition  to  do 
so  and  to  still  be  their  best  friend  and  protector,  as  in 
duty  bound  toward  those  dependent  on  him.     The 
overture  provides  in  terms  that  if  he  is  not  able  to 
discharge  fully  these  duties  to  those  dependent  upon 
him  without  aid,  then  the  church  shall  aid  him. 
Hence  the  entire  mixed  family,  would  be  placed  in 
better  living  condition  than  before.     This  is  kindness, 
not  crue.lty. 

(8)  Confession  of  Faith,  chapter  xxiv.     "Of  Mar- 
riage and  Divorce,"  section  first,  is  in  the  following 
words:  "Marriage  is  to  be  between  one  man  and  one 
woman;  neither  is  it  lawful  for  any  man  to  have 
more  than  one  wife,  nor  for  any  woman  to  have  more 
than  one  husband  at  the  same  time."     The  overture 
is  no  stricter  than  this  provision  of  the  constitution  of 
the  church,  and  it  is  meant  to  render  it  operative ;  and 
it  is  not  easy  to  see  how  anyone  who  accepts  the  con- 
stitution of  the  church  can  oppose  this  overture. 

In  many  parts  of  the  heathen  world  the  woman  is 
the  breadwinner,  and  supports  the  man  and  their 
children ;  and  hence  the  main  result  of  the  separation 
,  in  such  cases  would  be  to  set  the  loafer  to  work.  As 
a  rule,  the  described  horrors  of  separation  as  thus 
contemplated  are  an  utter  fiction  and  fraud. 

The  church  is  bound  to  come  to  some  such  position 

4 


50 

as  this  overture,  or  lose  its  purity  and  power.  Ajnd 
the  sooner  it  is  done,  after  all  this  waiting  and  con- 
fusion, the  better.  Of  all  the  churches  on  earth,  one 
would  suppose  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church 
would  most  promptly  and  uncompromisingly  unfurl 
its  banner  for  Christ  and  the  uncorrupted  Christian 
family  at  home  and  abroad.  If  the  present  state  of 
things  is  continued,  how  can  our  Southern  Church  be 
defended  against  the  charge  of  being  "Polygamous 
Presbyterians?" 

The  overture,  with  this  comment,  was  published  in  The 
Central  Presbyterian,  The  Presbyterian  Standard,  and  The 
Southwestern  Presbyterian  after  the  action  taken  by  the 
Synod  of  Virginia. 

CHAPTER  VII. 
THE  OVERTURE  BEFORE  THE  SYNOD  OF  VIRGINIA. 

The  overture  on  Polygamy  was  laid  before  the  Synod  of 
Virginia  at  its  meeting  in  Martinsburg  in  the  fall  of  1904, 
and  by  that  body,  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Committee 
on  Bills  and  Overtures,  it  was,  without  debate,  committed  to 
an  ad  interim  committee  to  report  to  the  Synod  at  its  next 
meeting  in  1905. 

The  report  of  the  Committee  of  Bills  and  Overtures  on  the 
overture  *  *  *  touching  the  subject  of  polygamy,  was 
taken  from  the  docket,  and  after  consideration  was  adopted, 
as  follows  (1904) : 

In  reply  to  the  overture,  *  *  *  the  committee 
recommends  that  an  ad  interim  committee  of  three 
ministers  and  two  ruling  elders  be  appointed  to  con- 
sider this  whole  subject  and  report  to  the  Synod  at 
its  next  meeting  some  suitable  action. 

A.  M.  FRASER,  Chairman. 


51 

The  Moderator  announced  the  following  ad  interim  com- 
mittee on  this  paper:  F.  J.  Brooke,  D.  D. ;  G.  W.  Finley, 
D.  D. ;  R.  H.  Fleming,  D.  D. ;  and  Ruling  Elders  T.  B.  Gres- 
ham  and  K.  Kemper. 

Subsequently,  the  name  of  the  Rev.  G.  W.  Painter,  a  mis-* 
sionary  returned  from  China,  was  added  to  the  ad  interim 
committee. 

The  118th  Annual  Session  of  the  Synod  of  Virginia  con- 
vened in  Richmond  (Va.)  Second  Presbyterian  Church,  Oc- 
tober 26,  1905,  at  8  p.  m. 

October  27,  the  Ad  Interim  Committee,  Rev.  F.  J.  Brooke, 
D.  D.,  chairman,  on  the  overture  on  Polygamy  in  the  Mission 
Fields,  presented  its  report: 

Report  of  Ad  Interim  Committee  on  Overture  Con- 
1      cerning  Polygamy  (1905). 

Your  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  overture 
of  the.  Rev.  S.  S.  Laws,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  introduced  at 
the  last  meeting  of  Synod  (see  Minutes,  1904,  pp. 
38,  39),  beg  leave  to  report  that,  after  the  most  care- 
ful, prayerful,  and  exhaustive  study  of  the  question, 
so  far  as  we  have  had  access  to  authorities,  we  are  un- 
able to  come  to  an  agreement  *so  as  to  make  a  unan- 
imous report.  We  therefore  beg  leave  to  say  that 
your  committee  is  agreed  as  to  the  law  of  marriage 
of  the  Bible  being  monogamy,  and  as  to  polygamy 
being  a  sin  which  should  be  extirpated  by  the  church ; 
but  we  differ  so  widely  as  to  what  method  should  be 
pursued  by  the  church  in  the  foreign  field,  that  all  we 
can  do  is  to  suggest  to  the  Synod  either  (1)  to  con- 
tinue the  committee  and  enlarge  it,  or  (2)  to  appoint 
a  new  committee  to  report  to  the  next  meeting  of  the 
Synod,  or  (3)  to  send  the  overture  to  the  General 
Assembly  without  recommendation  as  to  its  action, 


52 

and  request  the  Assembly  to  refer  it  to  an  ad  interim 
committee  for  report. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

F.  J.  BROOKE, 

G.  W.  FINLEY, 
G.  W.   PAINTER, 
K.  KEMPER, 

Committee. 

The  other  members  of  the  committee  were  absent. 
This  report  was  laid  over  from  time  to  time  till  the  31st, 
the  last  day  of  the  session,  when  the  following  substitute  was 
adopted,  on  the  eve  of  adjournment: 

The  Synod  of  Virginia  approves*  and  records  the 
report  of  the  ad  interim  committee  on  the  overture  of 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Laws ;  commends  the  diligence  and  abil- 
ity with  which  the  committee  has  done  its  work,  and 
places  the  following  statements  upon  its  minutes  as 
an  expression  of  opinion  upon  the  subject  of  the 
overture : 

1.  The  Synod  recognizes  the  fact  that  the  Scrip- 
tures unequivocally  enjoin  monogamy  as  the  law  of 
God  and  condemns  polygamy  as  a  sin. 

2.  The  Synod  is  aware  that  the  Assembly's  Com- 
mittee of  Foreign  Missions  and  all  the  missionaries 
of  the  Southern  Church  are  in  most  cordial  sympathy 
with  this  position. 

3.  A  difference  of  opinion  exists  as  to  the  best 
method  of  extirpating  polygamy  in  the  foreign  field. 

4.  It  is  best  not  to  reopen  this  question,  but  to  leave 
it  entirely  where  the  Assembly  of  1904  has  already 
placed  it. 

5.  That  in  the  judgment  of  the  Synod  of  Virginia 
it  should  be  required  and  expected  of  our  missionaries 
in  all  lands  to  teach,  and  to  seek  to  exhibit  in  the  lives 
of  their  converts  the  scriptural  law  of  marriage,  and 
the  purity  and  happiness  of  the  Christian  home. 

*Yet  repudiated  it. 


53 

This  substitute,  amended,  for  the  report  of  the  Committee 
on  Polygamy  in  the  Foreign  Field,  was  adopted,  and  on  mo- 
tion the  vote  was  recorded. 

THE  COMPLAINT. 

Notice  was  promptly  given  the  stated  clerk  that  the  over- 
ture would  be  carried  up  to  the  General  Assembly  by  com- 
plaint, for  reasons  to  be  stated  therein.  This  complaint  was 
placed  in  the  hands  of  the  stated  clerk  of  the  Synod  within 
the  limit  of  ten  days,  as  required,  and  several  parties  joined 
in  it.  (258  F.  Gov.)  I  started  to  make  it  an  individual 
complaint,  but  several  brethren  learning  of  it  gave  to  the 
stated  clerk  their  names,  so  that  a  number  have  joined  in  the 
complaint. 

COMPLAINT  TO  THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  OF  THE  PRESBY- 
TERIAN CHURCH  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES,  TO  MEET  IN 
GREENVILLE,  S.  C.,  MAY,  1908,  AGAINST  THE  ACTION  OF 
THE  SYNOD  OF  VIRGINIA  RELATIVE  TO  THE  OVERTURE  ON 
POLYGAMY. 

[Book  of  Church  Order,  ch.  v,  90:  "The  General  Assembly  shall 
have  power  to  receive  and  issue  all  appeals,  references,  and  complaints 
regularly  brought  before  it  from  the  inferior  courts."] 

By  virtue  of  our  right  as  members  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  South,  and  impelled  by  a  profound  sense  of  duty, 
we  do  hereby  solemnly  complain  against  the  action  of  said 
Synod  at  its  late  meeting  in  Richmond,  October  26  to  October 
31,  1905,  relative  to  the  overture  to  the  General  Assembly  on 
Polygamy  :— - 

1.  Because  the  said  action  shut  down  on  further  inquiry, 


54 

whereas  the  ad  interim  committee  reported  without  dissent 
in  favor  of  further  inquiry  either  by  the  Synod  or  by  the 
General  Assembly.  If  the  committee,  after  having  the  sub- 
ject under  consideration  for  a  year,  felt  the  need  of  further 
investigation,  the  presumption  is  reasonable  that  most  other 
members  of  the  Synod,  whose  attention  had  not  been  spe- 
cially turned  to  the  subject,  would  have  profited  by  further 
inquiry.  Especially  is  this  rendered  probable  in  view  of  the 
declaration  that  it  is  "best  not  to  reopen  the  question,  but  to 
leave  it  entirely  where  the  Assembly  of  1904  has  already 
placed  it." 

This  assumes  that  the  Assembly  of  1904  closed  this  ques- 
tion, whereas  such  an  inference  is  deemed  impossible  from 
the  facts  in  the  case.  And  one  of  our  Presbyteries,  in  re- 
viewing the  minutes,  takes  exception  (as  stated  above)  to  the 
Assembly's  ostensible  answer  as  "not  apparently  touching  the 
point  raised  by  the  overture."  Certainly  this  point  was  by 
the  constitution  entitled  to  a  pertinent  response.  The  im- 
pression has  been  that  the  perturbed  condition  of  the  Mobile 
General  Assembly  diverted  attention  from  the  issue. 

2.  In  the  second  place,  we  complain  against  this  action  of 
the  Synod  of  Virginia,  because  the  deliverance  of  the  Mobile 
General  Assembly,  1904,  to  which  the  Synod  in  this  action 
gives  its  endorsement  and  approval,  is  in  derogation  of  the 
constitutional  power  and  duty  of  the  Assembly,  and  imperils 
the  purity,  peace,  and  prosperity  of  our  church  in  Christian 
as  well  as  in  heathen  lands. 

The  Constitution  of  our  Church,  ch.  xxiv,  relates  to  mar- 
riage and  divorce.  We  will  quote  sec.  1:  "Marriage  is  to  be 
between  one  man  and  one  woman;  neither  is  it  lawful  for 
any  man  to  have  more  than  one  wife,  nor  for  any  woman  to 


55 

have  more  than  one  husband  at  the  same  time."  When  it  is 
said  "neither  is  it  lawful  for  any  man,'7  "nor  any  woman," 
that  means  in  the  church  or  out  of  it.  And  the  reason  is 
that  monogamy  is  not  only  the  law  of  the  Bible,  but  of  na- 
ture; and  the  Saviour  so  expounds  it  (Matt,  xix:  3-9,  and 
Mark  x:  2-9).  But  our  chief  concern  is  with  the  indisputa- 
ble fact  that  this  constitutional  provision  is  binding  on  every 
lay  and  official  member  of  our  church,  on  every  individual 
church,  and  all  our  church  courts,  sessions,  Presbyteries,  Sy- 
nods, and  General  Assemblies. 

The  language  of  the  Larger  Catechism,  Q,  139,  in  enumer- 
ating "the  sins  forbidden  in  the  Vllth  Commandment," 
quite  agrees  with  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  is  as  follows, 
viz. :  "Undue  delay  of  marriage,  Having  more  wives  or  hus- 
bands than  once  at  the  same  time,  unchaste  company,"  &c. 

In  the  administration  of  the  government  of  the  church 
under  this  constitution  it  is  provided  that  the  General  As- 
sembly of  the  church  "represents  in  one  body  all  the  churches 
thereof  and  constitutes  the  bond  of  union,  peace  and  cor- 
respondence among  all  its  congregations  and  courts." 

The  General  Assembly,  therefore,  represents  not  merely 
the  church  courts,  but  also  the  individual  churches  and  con- 
gregations of  our  connection  the  world  over. 

Among  the  powers  and  corresponding  duties  with  which 
the  Assembly  is  invested,  are  enumerated  the  following,  viz. : 
"To  give  its  advice  and  instruction,  in  conformity  with  the 
constitution,  in  all  cases  submitted  to  it.  *  *  *  To  concert 
measures  for  promoting  the  prosperity  and  enlargement  of 
the  church.  *  *  *  In  general  to  recommend  measures  for 
the  promotion  of  charity,  truth  and  holiness  through  all  the 
churches  under  its  care." 


56 

Now  this  very  overture  respecting  polygamy  on  which  this 
Synod  has  just  acted  was  "submitted"  to  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  1904,  by  one  of  its  Presbyteries,  and  so  far  from  that 
Assembly  giving  "advice  and  instruction,  in  conformity  with 
the  constitution"  in  the  case  thus  submitted,  as  it  was  in  duty 
bound  to  do,  it  not  only  failed  to  comply  with  the  constitu- 
tion by  declining  "to  make  any  deliverance  on  this  subject," 
and  by  allowing  the  actual  existence  and  continuance  of 
polygamy  in  our  church  without  one  word  of  advice  or  in- 
struction touching  it,  but  it  thus,  by  doing  nothing  profess- 
edly, actually  left  the  treatment  of  the  whole  subject  to  the 
discretion  of  the  missionaries  themselves,  in  the  face  of  the 
fact  that  the  missionaries  thus  entrusted  with  the  discretion- 
ary disposal  of  the  subject — a  power  not  within  the  consti- 
tutional competence  of  the  Assembly  itself — had  already  ad- 
mitted a  number  of  polygamists  to  baptism  and  the  com- 
munion of  our  church,  without  any  advice  or  authority  for 
so  doing  from  their  Presbyteries  or  any  competent  counsellor. 
This  presumptuous  and  unconstitutional  irregularity  was 
disregarded  and  the  question  of  dealing  with  polygamy  was 
in  this  manner  committed  to  the  unrestrained  and  unregu- 
lated discretion  of  those  who  have  already  admitted  it  info 
our  church — the  lamb  was  committed  to  the  care  of  the 
wolf — and  thus  the  door  was  set  wide  open,  not  only  for  its 
continuance  in  but  for  its  increase  in  the  church.  Is  this  a 
compliance  with  the  duty  of  the  Assembly  "to  promote  truth 
and  holiness  throughout  all  the  churches  under  its  caref" 
and  to  maintain  the  law  of  monogamy  in  the  church? 
"Can  a  man  take  fire  in  his  bosom  and  his  clothes  not  be 
burnt?"  (Prov.  vi:  27). 

In  view  of  the  state  of  fact  here  concisely  given,  and  which 


57 

no  man  can  truthfully  deny  or  materially  qualify,  how  can 
we  defend  our  church  against  the  (newspaper)  charge  of 
being  "POLYGAMOUS  PEESB YTERIANS"  ?  It  is  no 
relief  to  be  told,  what  may  be  true,  that  some  others  have 
pursued  the  same  course,  and  are  equally  guilty  of  harboring 
polygamy  within  their  communion.  The  simple  truth  is 
that  this  overture  was  originally  drawn  and  submitted  to  save 
our  church  from  this  odious  and  sinful  position. 

At  the  time  when  this  overture  was  submitted  in  1904,  there 
never  had  been,  we  believe,  any  deliverance  by  our  General 
Assembly  on  the  subject,  so  that,  to  the  extent  that  it  then 
existed  in  the  church,  it  was  wholly  referable  to  individual 
responsibility;  and  the  adoption  of  this  overture,  which  in- 
dividualizes no  church  but  deals  with  the  subject  on  prin- 
ciple and  generically,*  would  have  checked  the  matter  at  that 
point  and  been  an  effectual  barrier  to  its  further  entrance  into 
our  church;  whilst  the  adequate  disciplinary  provisions  for 
dealing  with  all  sinful  practices  within  the  church,  would 
have  soon  rid  us  wholly  of  this  accursed  thing  and  saved  our 
good  name.  But  the  General  Assembly  and  the  Synod  of 
Virginia,  by  the'  actions  in  contemplation,  have  published 
this  unfortunate  position  to  the  world,  and  sanctioned  it, 
from  which  there  is  now  no  escape  except  by  the  reversal  of 
these  proceedings  or  deliverances,  so  contradictory  to  the  con- 
stitution of  our  church  and,  we  are  constrained  to  say,  so 
shocking  to  the  Christian  consciousness  of  God's  people  as 
immoral  and  unscriptural.  There  is  manifest  danger  that 
confidence  and  interest  in  missionary  work  thus  conducted 
will  be  seriously  blighted. 

*  Abundant  information  was  sent  to  the  chairman  of  the  Committee 
of  Bills  and  Overtures  as  to  polygamy  in  the  Luebo  church,  Africa,  as 
matter  of  fact,  and  there  were  two  missionaries  at  the  Assembly  from 
Luebo. 


58 

Before  God,  therefore,  we  solemnly  complain  against  this 
action  of  the  Synod  of  Virginia  as  sanctioning  and  sharing 
the  responsibility  of  the  unconstitutional,  unscriptural  and 
unwise  proceeding  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1904  on  the 
subject  of  polygamy,  continuing  polygamy  in  the  church  and 
leaving  open  the  door  for  an  unlimited  increase  of  it. 

3.  We  may  say  that  there  are  two  things  commendable  in 
the  paper  adopted  by  the  Synod,  in  its  substitute  for  the  re- 
port of  the  ad  interim  committee  to  send  the  overture  to  the 
General  Assembly:  (1)  One  is  its  adoption  of  so  much  of 
the  report  of  the  ad  interim  committee  as  declares  monogamy 
the  law  of  God  and  polygamy  a  sin;  (2)  The  other  is  the 
amendment  by  Dr.  J.  P.  Smith :  "5.  That  in  the  judgment 
of  the  Synod  of  Virginia  it  should  be  required  and  expected 
of  our  Missionaries  in  all  lands  to  teach  and  to  seek  to  ex- 
hibit in  the  lives  of  their  converts  the  Scriptural  law  of  mar- 
riage and  the  purity  and  happiness  of  the  Christian  home." 

But  who  is  to  require  the  missionaries  to  do  as  specified? 
The  Synod  cannot  do  it.  The  Assembly  of  1904  does  not  re- 
quire it,  nor  even  advise  it,  but  leaves  the  matter  unregulated 
to  the  missionaries  in  the  field  who  have  already  so  taught  the 
law  of  marriage  as  to  admit  polygamists  into  the  church. 

But  what  authority  does  our  church  organization  provide? 
Our  answer  must  be,  that  the  only  authority  competent  to 
primarily  call  to  account  and  to  require  of  the  missionary,  or 
any  other  minister  of  our  church,  a. given  course  of  teaching 
and  practice  conformable  to  the  constitution  of  the  church,  is 
the  Presbytery.  The  Assembly,  however,  should  and  can 
approve  or  disapprove  the  practice. 

But  it  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  that  if  the  As- 
sembly takes  a  position  the  Presbytery  is  virtually  disarmed  as 


59 

to  dissenting  disciplinary  requirements  and  proceedings,  for 
the  case  may  be  already  predetermined  by  the  final  court  of 
appeal.  This  is  exactly  what  was  done  by  the  General  As- 
sembly of  1904,  which  ignored  this  very  overture  and  com- 
mitted this  matter  to  the  missionaries  in  the  field,  to  which 
deliverance  this  Synod  of  Virginia  in  its  action  has  given  its 
adhesion.* 

And  as  this  Assembly  deliverance,  unless  repealed,  com- 
mits our  church  to  the  existence  and  continuance  of  polyg- 
amy in  our  communion,  how  can  any  of  us,  we  ask  again, 
defend  our  Southern  Church  against  the  charge  that  it  is  a 
polygamous  church?  for  it  recognizes  actual  polygamists  as 
church  members  and  communicants  without  renouncing 
their  polygamy  and  this  by  its  highest  church  court ;  and  has 
not  advised,  nor  recommended  any  steps  for  the  discontinu- 
ance of  such  membership,  nor  the  closing  of  the  church  door 
against  the  further  reception  of  such  members.  Yet,  in  the 
very  face  of  this  condition  of  things,  the  Synod  has  declined 
to  forward  to  the  Assembly  this  overture  which  proposes  a 
definite,  a  constitutional,  a  just  and  kindly  and  thorough 
and  lasting  disposal  of  the  subject,  and  furnishes  an  occasion 
and  reason  for  the  reconsideration  of  the  whole  subject  by  the 
General  Assembly. 

We  submit  that  the  language  and  spirit  of  the  Smith 
amendment  may  be  legitimately  pleaded  in  support  of  the 
General  Assembly  giving  the  subject  further  consideration. 

*  Ecclesiastically  there  are  two  methods  of  procedure:  (i)  One  is 
administrative  by  the  direct  supervisory  action  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, which  is  brief  and  effective  as  the  constitution  provides;  (2)  the 
other  is  the  judicial,  vexatious,  and  wearisome  way,  beginning  in  the 
Presbytery  by  indictment,  &c.  If  necessary,  resort  will  be  had  to  the 
second;  the  overture  appeals  to  the  first,  and  we  think  wisely. 


60 

For  it  is  neutralized  and  handicapped  and  like  a  honey  bee 
in  a  hornet's  nest,  by  the  action  of  which  it  is  part. 

4.  "We  complain  again  of  the  attempt  to  extirpate  polygamy 
either  in  the  church  or  in  the  world  by  admitting  it  into  the 
church,  and  harboring  it  there,  either  temporarily  or  per- 
manently.   It  belongs  to  the  camp  of  an  implacable  enemy. 
Could   gambling,   a  less   heinous  sin   than   polygamy,   be 
lessened  or  extirpated  from  any  community  by  admitting 
known  gamblers  into  the  church  and  genteel  society  whilst 
pursuing  their  nefarious  practices?    If  so,  then  may  polyg- 
amy be  extirpated  by  entertaining  it  and  compromising 
with  it. 

5.  There  are  two  additional  and  important  reasons  for  this 
complaint  that  ought  to  be  mentioned  at  this  time. 

One  is  the  persistent  misconception  of  the  separation  con- 
templated in  the  overture.  The  provisions  of  the  overture 
were  represented  as  iron-clad,  harsh  and  cruel.  And  those 
who  thus  spoke  against  it,  doubtless  spoke  their  convictions 
and  aroused  unreasonable  prejudice  and  opposition ;  the  only 
explanation  of  which  would  seem  to  be  a  failure  to  give  it 
and  the  general  subject  due  consideration. 

The  truth  of  the  case  is  that  the  separation  provided  for  in 
the  overture  places  all  of  the  members  of  the  polygamist's 
mixed  family  in  a  better  condition  than  previously,  not  only 
morally  but  in  a  business  way. 

The  separation  of  the  man  as  husband  is  simply  and  only 
from  all  other  women  than  his  one  wife.  The  indecency 
and  gross  licentiousness  of  cohabiting  with  more,  or  other, 
than  the  one  true  wife,  is  to  be  abandoned  because  wrong  and 
sinful.  The  Synod  avows  that  it  is  sinful,  and  yet  tolerates  it. 

But  the  overture  provides  that  the  obligation  to  support 


61 

and  care  for  those  thus  separated  remains  in  full  force.  His 
becoming  a  Christian  does  not  lessen  the  man's  ability  to  pro- 
vide for  those  made  dependent  on  him ;  indeed,  his  conscien- 
tious disposition  to  discharge  this  binding  obligation  will  add 
strength  to  his  natural  resources.  Besides,  it  seems  to  be 
overlooked  that  the  overture  in  terms  provides  "that  if  the 
so-called  wife  or  wives  thus  repudiated  as  wives,  or  their 
children,  or  both,  be  dependent,  then  the  church  shall  kindly 
assist  him  in  their  support,  if  need  be."  There,  in  this  same 
section,  kindly  words  of  tender  treatment  are  spoken. 

The  charge  of  harshness  and  unkindness  is  an  inexcusable 
perversion  of  the  spirit  and  very  language  of  the  overture. 
Moreover,  it  is  in  terms  enjoined  that,  when  the  separation 
has  taken  place  and  he  has  made  provision  for  those  hitherto 
dependent  on  him  by  his  own  voluntary  choice,  "to  the  full 
extent  of  his  ability,"  then,  if  need  be,  the  church  shall  aid 
him.  The  language  is :  "The  church  shall  aid  and  assist  him 
in  their  support,  if  need  be."  (Par.  3.)  Hence  the  mani- 
fest betterment  of  the  condition  of  all  concerned.  Their  nat- 
ural right  implies  his  natural  duty,  as  a  man,  which  is  favor- 
ably emphasized  by  his  becoming  a  Christian.  In  the  ethical 
system  of  Confucius  the  whole  subject  of  right  and  duty  is 
concentrated  in  the  one  word  Reciprocity.  To  see  the  church 
of  Christ  thus  acting,  by  firmly  opposing  polygamy  but 
kindly  and  generously  dealing  with  those  who  renounce  it, 
would  indeed  sap  the  very  foundations  of  heathen  polygamy, 
instead  of  encouraging  it  by  taking  it  into  the  bosom  of  the 
church. 

There  is  kindness  as  well  as  Christian  wisdom  and  duty 
in  all  this  treatment  of  the  poly  garni  sts  set  forth  in  the  over- 


62 

ture;  and  to  suggest  that  a  convert  could  not  be  trusted  in 
such  a  case  to  have  virtuous  and  friendly  association  with 
those  of  his  former  household,  is  to  say  he  is  not  a  Christian, 
and  has  not  the  grace  to  do  his  duty.  To  assume  that  a  man 
will  not,  as  a  Christian,  care  for  those  dependent  on  him 
unless  he  still  cohabits  with  the  women  and  mothers  of  his 
children  in  his  heathen  state,  is  a  beastly  and  godless  assump- 
tion not  to  be  allowed.  Besides,  the  discipline  of  the  church 
would  look  after  that  as  after  any  other  sin.  (Rules  of 
Discipline,  §§  145,  146,  152.) 

To  attempt  to  saddle  upon  the  separation  from  a  polyga- 
mous and  adulterous  life,  provided  for  in  this  overture,  our 
just  condemnation  of  the  divorce  practice,  so  lamentably  rife 
in  our  midst,  is  to  transmute  a  benevolent  and  virtuous  Chris- 
tian act  into  a  foul  misdeed. 

In  heathen  lands  the  separation  contemplated  is  in  no 
proper  sense  a  divorce  at  all.  It  is  distinctly  provided  that 
the  real  and  only  wife  shall  retain  her  conjugal  relation ;  and 
the  relation  to  the  other  women  is  simply  sinful,  as  avowed 
by  the  committee  and  the  Synod,  and  the  sin  is  obviously 
that  of  adultery.  So  that  the  call  is  to  break  off  this  odious 
and  intolerable  sin  by  the  righteousness  of  a  monogamous 
Christian  life.  If  polygamy  is  a  sin,  as  conceded,  then  as 
there  is  certainly  no  sin  in  his  relation  to  the  true  wife,  the 
sin  must  be  in  his  relation  to  other  women  than  this  wife. 
And  that  is  adultery.  And  the  separation  of  these  un wedded 
partners  in  adultery  is  not  a  divorce  at  all. 

We  have  before  us  a  recent  work  on  China  in  Law  and 
Commerce,  by  T.  R.  Jernigan,  and  will  quote  from  p.  113 
this  paragraph  as  a  searchlight  on  the  condition  of  society  in 


63 

that  country,  which  is  much  the  same  as  among  other  polyga- 
mous peoples: 

"Neither  custom  nor  law  allows  a  Chinese  to  have 
more  than  one  legal  wife,  and  if  he  transgresses  he 
would  be  as  promptly  punished  under  the  Code  as  if 
convicted  of  bigamy  under  English  law.  But  while 
forbidden  to  have  more  than  one  legal  wife,  he  may 
have  as  many  concubines  as  he  feels  able  to  take  care 
of,  and  there  is  this  peculiarity  that  his  legal  wife  is 
selected  for  him,  while  his  concubines  are  chosen  by 
himself." 

Still  further  in  regard  to  the  separation.  This  is  the 
crucial  point — the  trying  test  in  receiving  or  rejecting 
polygamists  as  church  members.  It  is  urgently  charged 
that  it  involves  cruelty  and  wrong,  and  even  sin.  Pathetic 
and  harrowing  descriptions  are  given  of  the  divorced  wives 
and  children  reduced  to  want,  and  beggary,  and  crime. 
That  this  is  in  general  a  cruel  misrepresentation,  will  appear 
from  several  considerations. 

In  the  first  place,  the  only,  separation  contemplated  and 
demanded  is  that  of  confining  the  distinctive  attentions  of  a 
husband  to  the  one  wife,  and  withdrawing  such  attentions 
from  all  other  women.  .  The  case  is  substantially  brought  out 
in  one  of  the  polygamous  Mormon  eases,  as  dealt  with  under 
Congressional  law.  When  Utah  was  a  Territory,  Congress 
had  a  perfect  right  to  legislate  on  the  subject  of  polygamy  in 
it  as  a  Territory,  whereas  it  has  no  right  under  the  Constitu- 
tion, as  it  now  stands,  to  legislate  on  it  in  a  State  in  which  it 
takes  place,  for  the  individual  States  have  never  delegated  to 
Congress  power  over  it  in  their  several  territories.  But  some 
have  complained  that  Congress  dealt  too  mildly  with  it  in 


64 

Utah,  when  it  was  the  joint  territory  of  the  States,  as  its 
territorial  laws  were  less  exacting  than  the  laws  of  the  several 
States.  However,  fines,  imprisonment,  disfranchisement, 
and  confiscation  were  pronounced  and  executed  penalties. 
The  representative  of  the  Territory  (Cannon)  was  expelled 
from  Congress  because  a  polygamist.  A  number  of  their 
leading  men  were  indicted  as  polygamists,  and  some  con- 
fessed, paid  their  fines,  and  returned  to  their  church  duties. 
But  Joseph  E.  Taylor  refused  to  promise  discontinuance, 
and  was  fined.  This  apostle,  Taylor,  thus  states  the  issue. 
He  said:  "This  brings  us  to  the  question  at  issue.  What 
shall  be  done  with  plural  wives  who  entered  into  the  relation 
prior  to  the  decision  of  the  court  of  last  resort?  Shall  they 
be  abandoned,  one  and  all,  or,  as  in  my  case,  shall  I  select 
one  of  the  two  plural  wives  named  in  the  complaint — there 
being  no  legal  wife?  If  so,  which  one? — and  live  with  her 
exclusively,  discarding  the  other,  and  that,  too,  without  con- 
sulting her  at  all  in  the  matter,  and  say  to  her:  'Hereafter 
you  must  not  come  near  me.  I  will  give  you  food  and  cloth- 
ing for  yourself  and  children,  but  you  must  seek  other  society 
than  mine/  ' 

"To  this  the  reply  was  simply  that  these  plural  wives  shall 
be  abandoned  (as  wives) :  They  ought  to  be  supported.  But 
what  the  law  does  demand,  and  what  Christian  civilization 
demands,  and  what  common  decency  demands,  is  that  a  man 
shall  not  live  with  more  than  one  woman  as  a  husband ;  that 
he  shall  not  cohabit  with  her  (such  other  woman),  and  beget 
children  by  her."  (P.  224,  Folk's  Mormon  Monster.) 

This  is  substantially  the  issue  which  the  overture  contem- 
plates that  should  be  made  with  the  polygamist  heathen :  He 
is  not  called  on  to  utterly  abandon  and  forsake  them  at  all, 


65 

but  to  still  support  them  and  act  as  their  best  and  loyal 
friend  in  providing  for  and  aiding  the  women  and-  the  chil- 
dren in  life's  struggle.  Nay,  even  the  church  is  to  aid  and 
supplement  his  efforts,  thus  easing  life's  struggle.  His  be- 
coming a  Christian  does  not  lessen  his  ability  to  support 
them,  and  certainly  should  not  lessen  his  disposition  to  do  so. 
But  he  is  to  confine  his  attention  to  one  woman  as  husband — 
"cohabit  with  her  and  beget  children  by  her  alone."  The 
restraint  is  placed  on  his  cohabitation,  and  not  on  his  watch- 
ful and  even  increased  and  sympathetic  care  of  all  dependept 
on  him.  Yet  he?  like  other  Christian  and  decent  men,  is  to 
confine  his  sexual  indulgence  or  cohabitation  within  the 
bounds  of  his  monogamous  conjugal  relations.  This  is  rea- 
sonable, and  from  a  Christian  standpoint  it  is  an  imperative 
duty.  Listen  to  the  language  of  the  constitution  of  our 
church :  '''Neither  is  it  lawful  for  any  man  to  have  more  than 
one  wife,  nor  for  any  woman  to  have  more  than  one  husband 
at  the  same  time."  "Any  man"  makes  the  law  of  monogamy 
universal,  i.  e.,  a  natural  law  founded,  as  Christ  expounds  it, 
in  the  nature  of  man  as  originally  created,  which  never  has 
been  repealed,  and  which  no  human  authority  can  repeal, 
and  which  law  is  republished  and  sanctified  by  Jesus  Christ 
as  the  law  of  his  kingdom,  so  that  it  is  thus  rendered  not 
merely  the  law  of  the  natural  but  of  the  new  man.  The  vio- 
lation of  a  law  does  not  abrogate  it.  The  toleration  of 
polygamy  in  the  church  of  Christ  is  rank  treason.  Monog- 
amy, however,  remains  the  fundamental  law  of  the  kingdom 
of  Christ. 

No  appeal  has  been  made,  as  might  huvo  been  done,  to  the 
notorious  fact  that  in  many,  if  not  most,  heathen  communi- 
ties, the  women,  like  slaves,  largely  support  the  husband  and 
5 


66 

the  children,  so  that  the  main  consequence  of  separation  is  to 
set  the  loafing  so-called  husband  to  work.  Nowhere  is  this 
more  true  than  in  Africa  and  among  our  Indians. 

6.  The  only  additional  reason  that  will  now  be  brought 
forward  is  the  serious  degradation  of  the  church  involved  in 
its  toleration  of  polygamy.  Yes,  our  church  is  at  this  time 
tolerating  polygamy  in  the  church  at  Luebo,*  without  in- 
quiring now  about  other  cases  in  China.  The  General  As- 
sembly of  1904  says  hands  off ;  leave  it  to  the  missionaries  on 
the  ground — the  very  parties  who  have  admitted  it  into  the 
church,  and  are  now  busy  in  the  church  and  church  courts 
here  at  home  in  defending  and  advocating  its  continuance. 
The  General  Assembly  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church 
has  acquiesced  in  this  polygamous  state  of  the  church,  and 
allowed  its  continuance  and  increase  without  restraint.  We 
complain  against  the  action  of  the  Synod  of  Virginia  indors- 
ing this  condition  of  things,  and  yet  we  have  faith  that  the 
time  will  come  when  fuller  information  and  wiser  counsels 
will  prevail  and  rectify  the  sad  situation,  by  the  adoption  of 
this  neglected  overture  or  something  equivalent  to  it.  Its 
truth  may  for  the  time  be  crushed  to  earth,  but  it  will  rise 
again.! 

*  Since  writing  this  I  have  a  letter  from  Dr.  Chester,  given  later,  in 
which  he  concedes  that  it  is  also  in  the  Chinese  churches.  But  he  dis- 
claims all  responsibility,  and  places  that  on  the  General  Assembly,  as 
the  committee  is  simply  executive. 

f  The  following  letter  was  received  from  a  medical  missionary  in 
China,  from  which  I  feel  at  liberty  to  make  some  quotations.  It  is 
dated  at  Suchien,  China,  February  23,  1906: 

"Dr.  S.  S.  LAWS,  Washington,  D.  C. 

"DEAR  SIB:  I  feel,  in  your  agitating  the  question  of  polygamy  on 
the  foreign  field,  that  we  women  missionaries  may  have  a  say.  I  have 
been  a  hearty  sympathizer  in  the  movement,  and  hope  you  will  not  let 


67 

The  proof  that  the  present  position  of  our  church,  and 
of  all  other  churches  which  may  occupy  the  same  ground, 
degrades  the  church  below  the  secular  State  on  the  subject 
of  polygamy  and  of  polygamous  cohabitation,  is  easily  avail- 
able and  unanswerable. 

Whatever  the  conjecture  in  regard  to  the  precise  steps 
taken  in  the  organization  of  human  associations  and  states 
by  man  in  his  lapsed  condition,  we  are  not  left  to  conjecture 
as  to  the  attitude  of  civilized  states,  and  especially  of  the 
•United  States  and  of  the  great  mass  of  Christians,  on  this 
vitally  important  subject.  In  1862  the  United  States  Con- 
gress first  passed  the  Cullom  law  making,  in  a  Territory,  the 
act  of  polygamous  marriage  unlawful.  The  Mormons 
claimed  that  the  law  was  unconstitutional,  because  it  was 
an  infraction  of  their  right  and  way  to  worship  God.  But 
in  the  Reynolds  case,  1878,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  declared  this  law  against  polygamy  valid  in  all  re- 
it  rest  where  the  Synod  of  Virginia  left  it.  Missionaries  are  men  of 
many  minds,  and  so  important  a  matter  should  not  be  left  to  them  as 
individuals. 

1  'I  say  baptism  should  be  deferred  until  the  Lord  opens  up  the  way. 
The  Eoman  Catholics  allow  none  in  their  church. 

' '  In  my  medical  work  and  conversation  with  the  women,  I  have  seen 
a  great  deal  of  polygamous  homes,  and  I  feel  assured  the  religion  of 
Christ  can  not  flourish  in  a  home  of  that  kind.  No  mother  in  China 
who  has  any  respect  for  herself  or  her  daughter  would  consent  to  giv- 
ing her  child  as  a  secondary  wife.  It  is  always  done  by  those  who  love 
money  more  than  a  good  name.  The  first  wife  is  often  the  one  who 
gets  the  second  wife,  because  she  herself  has  no  son.  In  several  cases 
I  know  the  husband  had  nothing  to  do  with  it. 

''Trusting  you  may  be  guided  in  all  things, 
"Yours  in  a  common  cause, 

"  ANNIE  H.  PATTEBSON." 

(Wife  of  Rev.  A.  Craig  Patterson,  missionary  of  our  Lexington 
Presbytery. ) 


68 

spects.  We  will  quote  from  Chief  Justice  Waite's  opinion, 
as  follows:  "Polygamy  has  always  been  odious  among  the 
northern  and  western  nations  of  Europe,  and  until  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  Mormon  Church,  was  almost  exclusively  a 
feature  of  the  Asiatic  and  African  people  *  *  *.  By 
statute  of  James  I  of  England  the  offense  (of  polygamy)  was 
made  punishable  with  death."  (This  was  the  penalty  in  the 
Mosaic  code.  Deuteronomy  xxii:  22-25.)  The  judge  con- 
tinues : 

"It  is  a  significant  fact  that  on  the  8th  of  December, 
1788,  after  the  act  establishing  religious  freedom,  and 
after  the  convention  of  Virginia  had  recommended  as 
an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  the  declaration  of  the  bill  of  rights  that  'all 
men  have  an  equal,  natural  and  inalienable  right  to 
the  free  exercise  of  religion,  according  to  the  dictates 
of  conscience/  the  legislature  of  that  State  substanti- 
ally enacted  the  Statute  of  James  I,  the  death  penalty 
included,  because,  as  recited  in  the  preamble,  'it  hath 
been  doubted  whether  bigamy  and  polygamy  be 
punishable  by  the  laws  of  the  commonwealth/  From 
that  day  to  tliis,  we  think  it  may  safely  be  said  there 
never  has  been  a  time  in  any  State  of  the  Union  when 
.  polygamy  has  not  been  an  offense  against  society, 
cognizable  by  the  civil  courts  and  punishable  with 
more  or  less  severity." 

"Can  a  man  excuse  his  practice  to  the  contrary 
because  of  his  religious  belief?  To  permit  this  would 
be  to  make  the  professed  doctrines  of  religious  belief 
superior  to  the  law  of  the  land  and  in  effect  to  permit 
every  citizen  to  become  a  law  unto  himself.  Govern- 
ment could  exist  only  in  name  under  such  circum- 
stances." 


69 

Thus  far  Chief  Justice  Waite. 

So  also  in  Murphy  vs.  Ramsey  (114  U.  S.  S.?  p.  45),  con- 
struing the  Edmunds  Act,  Justice  Matthews  says: 

*  ****** 

"The  act  in  question  not  only  punished  polygamy 
but  also  unlawful  cohabitation,  and  declared  in- 
eligible for  office  any  person  who  maintained  the 
status  of  a  polygamist  or  cohabiter  with  more  than 
one  woman.  Section  8  of  that  act  is  as  follows: 

"That  no  polygamist,  bigamist,  or  any  person  co- 
habiting with  more  than  one  woman,  and  no  woman 
cohabiting  with  any  of  the  persons  described  as  afore- 
said in  this  section,  in  any  Terrtitory  or  other  place 
over  which  the  United  States  have  exclusive  jurisdic- 
tion, shall  be  entitled  to  vote."  &c.  *  *  * 

It  is  observed  that: 

"This  law  has  not  only  the  force  of  a  public  law, 
but  it  was  the  outcome  of  years  of  agitation  and  re- 
flection. It  crystallized  the  sober  sense  of  the  Ameri- 
can people;  it  represented  the  settled  views  of  our 
wisest  and  most  conservative  statesmen,  and  later 
received  the  stamp  of  approval  from  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  in  many  well-considered 
cases  and  was  made  the  subject  of  felicitous  procla- 
mations by  the  Presidents."  (President  Harrison, 
1892,  and  President  Cleveland,  1894.) 

The  Edmunds-Tucker  Law  was  passed  1882.  Brigham 
Roberts  married  a  second  and  bigamous  wife,  1885,  having 
married  his  first  wife  prior  to  1882 ;  and  he  was  by  the  United 
States  Court  put  in  the  penitentiary  for  this  offense  of  bigamy 
or  polygamy  of  the  lowest  grade.  He  was  also  denied  a  seat 
in  Congress  after  serving  his  term  in  prison. 

Have  we  sufficiently  considered  that,  if  our  Luebo  Church 


70 

were  in  United  States  territory,  these  polygamist  members  of 
our  church  would  be  in  like  manner  liable  to  imprisonment 
as  criminals,  and  the  American  people  would  say,  Amen. 
Yet  their  sin  there,  morally,  is  just  the  same  as  it  would  be 
here. 

This  would  be  a  lesson  forever  in  the  relation  of  church 
and  State  which  we  should  not  be  willing  either  to  deserve  or 
to  learn.  The  only  barrier  to  all  polygamous  Mormons  now 
being  thus  proceeded  against  is  the  subsequently  forged 
shield  of  Statehood. 

Thus  we  see  that  in  its  territorial  condition  the  United 
States  authorities  in  Utah  treated  polygamy  as  a  felony  and 
put  Brigham  H.  Roberts  in  the  penitentiary  for  taking  a 
second  wife  and  having  and  cohabiting  with  several  women 
at  the  same  time.  Yet  our  church  at  Luebo  has  a  number  of 
bigamists  and  polygamists,  in  holy  communion  with  us  who, 
in  our  country,  by  the  law  of  the  land  would  be  liable  to  be 
put  in  prison, — it  might  be  in  the  penitentiary,  as  criminals! 

If  this  does  not  show  our  church  to  be  on  a  lower  plane 
on  the  subject  of  polygamy  than  the  secular  State,  then 
language  and  facts  have  lost  their  significance. 

The  force  of  this  appeal  to  the  decisions  of  the  courts  is  not, 
as  has  been  charged,  to  derive  the  law  of  church  action  from 
the  State,  but  to  fix  attention  on  the  endorsement  that  reason 
gives  to  monogamy  as  a  law  of  nature  and  confirmatory  of 
the  teaching  of  Christ  and  the  Bible.  The  argument  is  valid 
and  forcible  and  is  technically  termed  a  fortiori. 

We  cannot  mutely  consent  to  our  church  living  a  double 
life,  having  one  standard  of  Christian  communion  and  morals 
in  foreign  lands  and  another  at  home.  We  cannot  consent 
to  live  in  fellowship  with  such  a  vulgar  and  unchristian  prac- 
tice. 


71 

It  would  be  in  accord  with  the  kindly  treatment  suggested 
in  the  overture  to  collect  those  who  manifest  an  interest  in 
the  religion  of  the  missionary  into  groups  outside  the  church 
for  instruction  and  observation.  It  would  protect  the  church 
in  its  purity  and  present  an  uncompromising  and  truly  con- 
ciliatory front  as  witnessing  to  the  truth  of  God  against  this 
great  evil.  This  probationary  treatment  is  practiced  by  some ; 
it  is  practiced  at  Luebo ;  and  yet  the  sin  of  polygamy  and  the 
neoessity  of  its  renunciation  as  a  condition  of  baptism  are 
seemingly  not  taught  the  probationers.  The  fault  is  with  the 
missionary;  it  is  practicable  to  thus  arrange  because  only  a 
fraction  of  the  heathen,  Mohammedans,  Mormons,  or  Indians, 
are  polygamists.  The  poor,  who  are  the  great  masses  of  all 
peoples,  are  monogamists.  The  poor  in  all  ages  and  in  all 
lands  constitute  the  numerical  and  spiritual  strength  of  the 
Christian  Church.  This  overture  provides  that  the  rich  and 
the  poor,  male  and  female,  shall  enter  and  stand  in  the 
church  on  the  same  footing,  for  it  is  not  lawful  in  the  king- 
dom of  Jesus  Christ,  "for  any  man  to  have  more  than  one 
wife,  nor  for  any  woman  to  have  more  than  one  husband  at 
the  same  time." 

For  the  above  reasons  and  others  which  we  need  not  now 
mention,  we,  the  undersigned,  respectfully  ask  that  the 
General  Assembly  reverse  the  aforesaid  action  of  the  Synod 
of  Virginia  and  refer  the  overture  to  an  ad  interim  commit- 
tee of  its  own  to  report  on  the  whole  subject  at  the  next 
Assembly  in  1907. 

(The  variation  from  the  filed  complaint  is  not  material.) 

To  repel  with  temper  the  intimation  that  the  Southern 
Presbyterian  Church  is  a  polygamist  church  because  a  few 
polygamists  are  in  it,  as  a  hasty  and  unwarranted  gen- 


72 

eralization  and  slander,  is  an  impotent  cry  to  which  the 
public  will,  under  the  existing  circumstances,  pay  no  heed. 
For  should  a  body  be  branded  as  a  band  of  thieves  because 
only  a  few  guilty  of  theft  had  gained  entrance  into  it? 
Surely  not.  But  if  the  entrance  is  challenged  and  the  door 
is  by  formal  action  left  open  and  those  who  had  entered  are 
enrolled  and  treated  as  regular  members  of  the  fraternity, 
with  the  understanding  that  all  who  shall  enter  the  same  door 
will  be  fraternized  in  like  manner,  the  gnashing  of  wrath- 
ful teeth  would  only  be  self-condemnation.  This  would 
stamp  the  body  as  a  band  of  thieves,  it  matters  not  how  many 
honest  men  are  in  it  or  individual  protests  are  made. 

I  hope  all  will  get  wrathy  and  then  turn  their  wrath 
against  its  true  object — this  infamous  practice  and  the  sup- 
port of  it — and  not  against  anyone  endeavoring  to  check 
and  to  remove  from  the  church  this  great  evil. 

"Did  you  not  promise  to  be  zealous  and  faithful  in  main- 
taining the  truths  of  the  gospel,  and  the  purity  and  peace  of 
the  church,  whatever  persecution  or  opposition  may  arise 
unto  you  on  that  account?'/  Every  member  of  a  Session,  a 
Presbytery,  a  Synod  or  of  the  General  Assembly  has  answered 
this  question  in  the  affirmative,  and  is  under  the  same  vow 
as  myself. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

ADDRESS  TO  SYNOD  IN  PART. 

Whilst  the  overture  was  pending  before  the  Synod  of 
Virginia,  I  submitted  an  address  in  part  as  follows: 

In  calling  attention  to  this  state  of  fact,  I  do  not  wish  to 
be  understood  as  doing  more  than  pointing  out,  by  way  of 
revived  or  imparted  information,  an  adequate  reason  for  re- 
newing the  overture,  especially  under  the  auspices  of  the 


73 

Synod  of  Virginia,  of  which  I  am  a  member  and  whose  pres- 
tige may  make  sure  of  adequate  and  proper  attention  to  it. 
Of  course,  proper  allowance  must  be  made  for  the  somewhat 
perturbed  condition  of  that  Mobile  General  Assembly,  a  sort 
of  distraction  not  likely  to  occur  again  very  soon.  But  no 
question  of  this  nature  is  ever  finally  settled  till  it  is  settled 
right. 

If  there  is  any  question  which  involves  the  purity  of  the 
church  of  Christ  and  the  well-being  of  society,  whether 
heathen  or  Christian,  that  of  polygamy  must  be  recognized 
as  doing  so.  It  vitally  touches  the  family — the  fountain- 
head  of  individual,  social  and  public  morals  and  religion. 
It  touches  the  vital  question  as  to  the  heaven-ordained  and 
sacred  relation  of  the  sexes  of  the  human  race  in  regard  to 
the  sole  and  only  rightful  condition  of  parentage,  the  multi- 
plication and  perpetuation  of  that  race. 

This  is  a  subject  in  which  every  humanitarian,  every  good 
citizen,  as  well  as  every  Christian,  should  take  a  decided  in- 
terest. But  upon  none  does  the ,  obligation  to  do  so  press 
more  heavily  than  upon  the  officers  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  We  are  all  under  a  solemn  ordination  vow  to  be 
faithful  and  zealous  in  maintaining  "the  purity  and  peace 
of  the  church."  That  comprehends  the  entire  situation. 
That  vow  was  taken  by  myself  54  years  ago  this  very  month, 
and  in  ways  I  need  not  recount,  in  a  somewhat  eventful  and 
active  life,  it  has  been  held  and  kept  in  sacred  remembrance 
and  observance. 

There  are  perhaps  15  to  20  polygamous  families  in  our 
church  at  Luebo,*  on  the  Kassai,  a  southern  tributary  of  the 

*  This  was  the  public  statement  of  Rev.  W.  H.  Morrison  in  his  Sun- 
day evening  discourse,  March  20,  1904,  in  Washington,  D.  C.,  in  Dr. 
Pitzer's  church,  and  repeated  by  the  secular  papers  on  Monday  morn- 


74 

Congo  river,  in  .the  Congo  Free  State,  whose  beginnings  are 
so  tenderly  associated  with  the  career  and  death  of  some  of 
our  missionaries,  especially  the  lamented  Lapsley. 

II.  The  overture  which  is  now  before  this  Synod  provides 
for  the  enactment  of  an  ecclesiastical  statute  or  law  to  render 
operative  throughout  the  bounds  of  our  church  the  provision 
of  the  constitution  of  our  Southern  Presbyterian  Church  on 
the  subject  of  polygamy. 

1.  The  constitution  of  the  church  is  like  the  constitution  of 
a  State.  A  constitution  defines  and  enumerates  certain  dis- 
tinctive powers  and  regulative  measures,  but  these  provisions 
of  a  constitution,  which  organize  the  body  for  which  it  is 
enacted  and  provides  the  powers  and  constituent  conditions 
of  its  existence  and  specific  operation,  are  not  like  the  laws  of 
nature,  self-acting.  It  is  the  function  of  statute  laws  and  by- 
laws to  provide  the  ways  and  means  whereby  these  constitu- 
tional provisions  become  unequivocally  operative.  To  see 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  of  America  as  a  living 
and  working  organism,  you  must  take  into  account  not  only 
the  Constitution  itself,  but  also  the  immense  body  of  United 
States  statutes  and  the  interpretation  of  the  same  relative 
thereto  by  the  courts.  The  same  is  true  of  every  one  of  the 
States — its  constitution  and  State  statutes  must  both  be 
reckoned  with. 

Now,  what  is  thus  true  of  these  political  bodies  is  also  true 
of  our  Presbyterian  Church.  We  are  not  a  conglomerate  of 
individual  and  merely  sympathetic  entities,  but  a  homo- 


ing  and  evening.  At  Synod  of  Virginia,  1905,  Dr.  Morrison  restated 
four  or  five  families,  but  remarked  the  principle  is  the  same.  In  a  letter 
to  myself,  June  28,  1904,  Dr.  W.  M.  Morrison  writes :  "Now  what  I  did 
say  was  this :  We  have  a  few  men  in  our  African  church  who  have  two 
wives.  There  are  perhaps  not  more  than  fifteen  or  twenty  in  the  over 
two  thousand  membership." 


75 

geneous  constitutional  body.  The  Confession  of  Faith  and 
the  catechisms,  form  of  government,  and  our  consistent  de- 
liverances, constitute  us  an  ecclesiastical  organization,  which 
organization  differentiates  us  from  all  other  bodies. 

Whenever  a  constitution  provides  for  certain  ends  by  posi- 
tive or  negative  conditions,  legislative  enactments  are  thereby 
authorized  and  required  in  order  to  their  realization,  and  a 
failure  to  make  such  provision,  or  to  make  provisions  or  to 
sanction  proceedings  subversive  of  the  same,  would  be  of  the 
nature  of  grave  disloyalty  to  that  constitution.  For  example : 
The  United  States  Constitution  provides  that  "No  preference 
shall  be  given  by  any  regulation  of  commerce  or  revenue  to 
the  ports  of  one  State  over  those  of  another."  Now  an  act  of 
Congress  making  such  discrimination  would  be  pronounced 
by  the  court  void  ab  initio:  and  the  Government  would  be 
liable,  I  presume,  for  any  damage  consequent.  Again: 
Another  provision  of  the  United  States  Constitution  is  that 
Congress  shall  have  power  "To  establish  an  uniform  rule  of 
naturalization."  This,  in  view  of  the  vast  immigration  to  our, 
shores,  has  a  tremendous  sweep.  Now:  suppose  that  Congress 
should  enact  generally  that  those  naturalized  should  renounce 
all  allegiance  to  any  and  every  foreign  sovereignty  and  swear 
allegiance  to  the  United  States  of  America  alone,  except  that 
all  polygamists  that  come  to  our  shores  should  be  allowed  to 
retain  their  allegiance  and  loyalty  to  the  foreign  powers  from 
which  they  come."  Would  that  be  a  rule  that  treated  all  par- 
ties uniformly  and  justly?  And  would  our  people  and  courts 
sanction  it  by  tamely  submitting  to  such  discrimination,  ad- 
mitting disloyal  polygamists  as  citizens?  Never — with  a 
voice  of  thunder  it  may  and  must  be  answered — No,  NEVER. 
All  foreign  allegiance  must  be  equally  abjured  by  every  one 


76 

admitted  to  the  sanctities,  the  rights,  and  privileges  of  our 
citizenship,  be  he  who  or  come  whence  he  may. 

The  actual  state  of  fact  is  much  stronger  thsn  this  hypo- 
thetical case.  The  United  States  Immigration  Law  provides 
that,  among  other  classes  enumerated,  "polygamists,"  "an- 
archists" and  "prostitutes"  "shall  be  excluded  from  admis- 
sion into  the  United  States"  (Immigration  Laws,  Bureau  of 
Commerce  and  Labor,  §  5).  Polygamists,  therefore,  are  not 
only  denied  the  oath  of  citizenship,  but  are  even  excluded 
from  entering  the  country.  This  policy  is  pursued  by  the 
State  as  a  matter  of  self-preservation. 

Admission  to  state  citizenship  is  somewhat  like  admission 
to  clinch  membership.  Certain  conditions,  compatible  with 
the  constitution  of  the  body  entered,  must  be  complied  with ; 
and  the  attempt  to  pursue  or  enforce  any  course  of  action 
incompatible  with  constitutional  provisions  would  and  should 
be  deemed  and  treated  as  revolutionary  and  subversive — as 
complicity  with  anarchy  and  treason.  And  still  further,  what 
would  be  thought  of  certain  officials,  under  oath,  who  should 
undertake,  on  their  individual  responsibility,  to  install  aliens 
in  the  privileges  of  citizenship  not  only  without  the  authority 
of  statute  law,  but  in  violation  of  the  fundamental  law? 

The  parties  who  have  admitted  these  polygamists  into  our 
church  in  Africa  and  elsewhere  have  thus  acted  in  violation 
of  their  vows  and  of  the  constitution  of  the  church.  And  to 
ignore  the  fact  that  this  foul  abomination  has  been  admitted 
into  the  bosom  of  our  church,  whatever  may  be  the  circum- 
stances of  that  admission,  and  claims  increase  and  continu- 
ance therein  would  be  connivance  at  sin,  and  dealing  falsely 
with  a  most  serious  state  of  case  that  imperils  the  peace  and 
purity  of  our  church — its  very  existence  as  a  church  of  Christ. 


77 

The  uniformity  of  demanding  exclusive  allegiance  to  it  in 
the  inducting  of  aliens  into  the  citizenship  of  the  kingdom 
of  Christ,  is  as  important  as  allegiance  in  any  earthly  king- 
dom or  state.  There  is  no  valid  ground  of  naturalization 
till  the  candidate  renounces  all  allegiance  to  every  foreign 
power  and  positively  bows  to  the  exclusive  sovereign  authority 
of  the  United  States.  There  is  no  conclusive  evidence  that 
any  man  is  a  genuine  child  of  God  and  a  follower  of  Christ 
until  he  renounces  all  known  sin,  all  other  allegiance,  and 
acknowledges  allegiance  alone  to  our  King  in  Zion,  in  the 
exercise  of  genuine  faith  and  repentance.  But  this  no  man 
can  do  who  clings  to  any  known  sm.*  It  is  conceded  and  de- 
clared in  this  report  of  the  ad  interim  committee  now  before 
us  that  polygamy  is  a  sin;  and  clinging  to  it  is  refusing 
to  renounce  allegiance  to  the  sinful  kingdom  of  darkness  and 
an  attitude  of  subordination  to  it.  It  is  pre-eminently  the 


*  It  borders  on  the  incredible  when  it  is  stated  that  this  principle  of 
the  renunciation  of  all  foreign  allegiance,  in  this  case  allegiance  to 
Satan  in  the  practice  of  known  sin,  as  a  condition  of  church  membership, 
was  repudiated  on  the  floor  of  the  Synod  by  the  president  of  King's 
College,  Tennessee  (Dr.  Ramsay),  who  vociferously  proclaimed  that  it 
would  wreck  not  only  our  mission  churches,  but  our  home  churches.  I 
arose  in  my  place,  with  the  privilege,  and  asked  him  if  he  would  admit 
into  the  church  persons  who  would  not  make  this  renunciation,  and  he 
did  not  even  qualify  his  declaration.  But  the  amazing  thing  that  fol- 
lowed was,  that  an  ex-moderator  (Dr.  Hopkins)  of  our  General  Assem- 
bly indorsed  this  view,  and  repeated  the  declaration  that  it  would  wreck 
our  mission  churches.  The  old-fashioned  and  scriptural  requirement 
that  every  convert  from  the  kingdom  of  darkness  should  renounce  the 
world,  the  flesh,  and  the  devil,  was  in  the  debate  repudiated.  Strange 
and  incredible  as  this  may  seem  to  old-fashioned  Christians,  it  is  never- 
theless sadly  true.  This  startling  diversion  occurred  just  before  the 
vote.  Of  course  the  renunciation  would  have  swept  aside  polygamy 
and  made  the  vote  given  impossible. 


78 

badge  of  loyalty  to  Satan :  and  no  man  that  clings  to  it,  can 
join  in  the  song  of  the  Saints  : 

"Jesus,  I  my  cross  have  taken, 

All  to  leave  and  follow  thee; 
Naked,  poor,  despised,  forsaken, 

Thou  henceforth  my  all  shalt  be. 
Let  the  world  neglect  and  leave  me; 

They  have  left  my  Savior  too; 
Human  hopes  have  oft  deceived  me, 

Thou  art  faithful,  thou  art  true. 

"  Perish   earthly   fame  and  treasure, 

Come  disaster,  scorn  and  pain ; 
In  thy  service,  pain  is  pleasure ; 

With  thy  favor,  loss  is  gain. 
O  'tis  not  in  grief  to  harm  me, 

While  thy  bleeding  love  I  see; 
O  'tis  not  in  joy  to  charm  me, 

When  that  love  is  hid  from  me." 

"He  that  covereth  his  transgressions  shall  not  prosper;  but 
whoso  confesseth  and  forsaketh  them  shall  obtain  mercy." 
(Prov.  28: 13.)  The  heathen  applicant  cannot  be  supposed 
to  Question  the  missionary's  instruction  as  to  the  sin  of  polyg- 
amy and  the  shortness  of  the  time  beforehand  is  not  ma-' 
terial.  The  simple  question  is,  whether  he  has  been  so  in- 
formed. If  so,  in  coming  into  the  church  he  knows  that  he 
is  bringing  his  sin  with  him,  if  he  does  not  leave  and  re- 
nounce it  at  the  door  of  the  church.  This  simple  funda- 
mental principle  of  renunciation  carries  polygamy  over- 
board. It  is  not  the  intelligence  of  the  candidate  but  of  the 
missionary  or  evangelist  that  is  the  criterion  of  known  sin 
to  be  renounced. 

3.  Let  us  look  at  the  constitution  or  fundamental  law  of 
our  church  and  see  what  its  deliverance  is  on  the  conjugal 
relation  and  on  this  very  subject  of  polygamy.  I  will  quote 


79 

two  passages  which  are  clear  and  sufficient.  Confession  of 
Faith,  ch.  xxiv:  1 — "Marriage  is  to  be  between  one  man  and 
one  woman:  neither  is  it  lawful  for  any  man  to  have  more 
than  one  wife,  nor  for  any  woman  to  have  more  than  one 
husband  at  the  same  time." 

In  the  Larger  Catechism  in  the  answers  to  Questions  138 
and  139  on  the  seventh  commandment,  among  the  duties 
required  are  enumerated,  "Chastity  in  body  *  *  and  the 
preservation  of  it  in  ourselves  and  others  *  *  marriage 
by  those  that  have  not  the  gift  of  continence,  conjugal  love, 
and  cohabitation,"  and  among  the  sins  forbidden,  "having 
more  wives  or  husbands  than  one  at  the  same  time." 

Here,  then,  in  language' too  plain  and  full  in  these  passages 
to  admit  of  any  doubt,  question,  or  controversy,  monogamy 
among  church  members — not  to  speak  of  all  others  outside 
the  churches — is  enjoined  and  every  kind  and  gradation  of 
conjugal  plurality  is  forbidden.  Even  the  General  Assembly 
has  no  right — nor  the  shadow  of  a  right — to  order  or  to  au- 
thorize or  alloiv  it  otherwise,  as  it  has  done  in  the  retention  of 
polygamists  in  our  church  or  the  admission  of  them  into  it, 
so  long  as  the  constitution  remains  as  it  is.  For  individual 
missionaries  to  claim  the  right  to  set  up  this  Dagon  in  the 
temple  of  our  God  is  a  daring  and  reckless  presumption ;  and 
the  possibility  of  its  occurrence  without  discipline  shows  the 
necessity  of  a  prompt  and  plain  remedial  and  directive  action. 
The  General  Assembly  should  direct  its  churches  at  Luebo 
and  elsewhere  to  discipline  their  members  who  are  notori- 
ously and  openly  living  in  the  sin  of  polygamy  and  to  expel 
them  unless  they  renounce  it.  They  are  shamelessly  living 
and  cohabiting  with  several  women.  With  equally  dutiful 
authority  the  Assembly  should  interdict  the  admission  of 
any  one  in  un renounced  polygamous  relations. 


80 

What  a  constitution  forbids,  a  body  organized  under  that 
constitution  and  for  the  purpose  of  its  maintenance  cannot 
lawfully  do,  approve,  or  tolerate.  It  would  be  suicidal,  self- 
destructive,  for  the  United  States  Government  as  a  body  to 
sanction  or  tolerate  a  monarchical  state,  as  it  would  be  sub- 
versive of  the  Republic. 

4.  Let  it  be  particularly  observed  that  the  avowed  aim 
and  purport  of  this  overture  before  the  Synod,  is  to  lay  down 
a  rule  or  ecclesiastical  statute  to  render  the  provisions  of  the 
constitution  of  our  church  operative.  It  was  deliberately 
drawn  in  harmony  with  the  provisions  respecting  the  con- 
jugal relation  so  explicitly  embodied  in  the  fundamental  law 
of  our  church:  and  the  very  last  word  in  the  overture  des- 
ignates it  a  "rule."  The  rules  of  discipline  are  for  those 
within  the  church.  This  overture  chiefly  provides  for  deal- 
ing with  polygamists  not  yet  in  the  church — with  out- 
siders.  As  a  rule  it  would  be  an  authoritative  order  for 
the  enforcement  of  laws  in  harmony  with  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  church.  If  there  is  any  discrepancy  between 
this  overture  and  the  constitution,  please  point  it  out.*  And 
if  there  is  no  discrepancy  but  perfect  agreement,  between  this 
overture  and  the  constitution,  as  has  justly  been  argued  by 
the  chairman  of  our  ad  interim  committee,  then  let  those  who 
oppose  it  have  the  courage  to  confess  themselves  to  be  in  op- 
position to  the  constitution  of  the  church  in  this  matter,  and 

*  This  overture  broadly  enunciates  the  intolerance  of  polygamy  in  the 
church  of  Christ  everywhere  in  the  wide  world  where  our  church  order 
exists,  or  shall  exist.  As  to  those  in  the  church  already,  it  simply 
stimulates  into  effective  action  the  existing  rules  of  discipline  against 
"anything  in  the  principles  or  practice  of  a  church  member  professing 
faith  in  Christ  which  is  contrary  to  the  word  of  God  proved  to  be  such 
from  scripture,  as  interpreted  in  these  standards"  (Book  D,  ch.  3, 
§152),  and  it  effectually  limits  and  bars  further  admission  of  polygamy. 


81 

consistently  propose  an  alteration  of  that  constitution,  for 
it  gives  no  countenance  to  any  imaginable  scheme  of  gradual 
emancipation  from  the  Satanic  bonds  of  polygamy. 
"NEITHER  IS  IT  LAWFUL,"  and  no  circumstances,  or 
conditions,  or  palliations,  or  compromises  are  allowed  as  capa- 
ble of  rendering  it  lawful  for  a  moment.  Brethren,  do  you 
hear  those  words  of  our  constitution — "Neither  is  it  lawful 
for  any  man  to  have  more  than  one  wife"  in  the  church  or 
out  of  it?  It  is  an  absolute  and  unconditional  prohibition 
without  any  temporizing  with  or  connivance  at  any  departure 
from  the  strictest  monogamy  equally  on  the  part  of  man  and 
woman.  There  is  a  curious  story  of  a  missionary  among  the 
Mohawk  Indians,  in  colonial  days,  undertaking  to  gradually 
reform  their  polygamous  practices  by  reducing  them  to 
bigamy.  That  foolish  adventure  may  seem  even  more 
rational  than  the  scheme  of  attempting  to  exorcise  the  demon 
of  polygamy  by  admitting  it  to  the  communion  of  the 
church  where  it  ought  of  itself  to  be  ashamed  to  appear. 
A  pertinent  story  is  told  of  an  industrial  girl  who,  overtaken 
by  darkness  in  the  short  days,  as  she  was  as  usual  going  some 
distance  from  the  ferry  to  her  home  alone,  a  rude,  unknown 
fellow  stepped  up  and  offered  to  accompany  her.  She  de- 
clined, stating  she  had  company ;  but  he  persisted  and  finally 
he  remarked  that  she  certainly  had  no  company.  "Yes," 
said  she,  "The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  with  me  and  His  arm  will 
protect  me."  "Oh,"  said  the  fellow,  "well,  I  don't  keep  that 
sort  of  company,"  and  quit  her.  But  if  the  wicked  imp 
receive  the  slightest  encouragement  it  will  be  as  difficult  to 
shake  off  from  the  back  of  the  church  as  a  monkey  from  the 
back  of  a  pony.  And  missionaries  tell  us  that  the  polyg- 
amists  admitted  to  church  communion  become  advocates  of 


82 

it,  and  it  is  natural  that  they  should.  Hence — obsta  prin- 
cipiis — oppose  the  beginnings,  the  initial  steps  of  evil :  or  it 
will  be  like  the  letting  out  or  leakage  of  water — the  seeping 
of  the  darn  may  soon  so  swell  as  to  carry  away  the  breastwork 
and  overwhelm  all  before  it  in  desolation.  Give  an  inch  and 
it  will  take  an  ell :  admit  the  nose  of  the  camel  and  soon  its 
whole  ugly  body  will  be  installed  in  the  tent,  and  the  legiti- 
mate occupant  kicked  out.  Yes,  the  very  existence  of  the 
church  as  a  holy  family  is  imperiled. 

The  General  Assembly  is  as  really  at  fault  in  sanctioning 
individual  proceedings  violative  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
church  as  it  would  be  by  a  formal  enactment  setting  aside 
the  requirements  of  the  Constitution.  This  is  what  has  been 
done.  It  may  palliate  the  individual  action  that  there  is  an 
absence  of  a  specific  enactment,  but  it  does  not  justify  it. 

As  I  understand  it,  there  is  not  now  and  never  has  been  a 
formulated  rule  of  action  on  this  subject  in  the  Southern 
Presbyterian  Church.  It  is  matter  of  principle  and  not  of 
expediency  and  hence  cannot  be  left  to  discretion,  individual 
or  collective,  but  should  be  disposed  of  by  its  authority  to  de- 
fine action  under  the  constitution.  Other  churches  and  or- 
ganized mission  bodies  have  provided  for  its  regulation  as  we 
shall  see,  though  we  are  supposed  to  be  exceptionally  well 
equipped  for  the  task;  yet  some  of  our  most  valuable  testi- 
mony in  support  of  not  baptizing  polygamists  is  from  Con- 
gregationalists,  Methodists  and  Episcopalians.  The  Catholics 
also  have  a  formally  prohibitory  statute.  The  same  is  true  of 
the  Episcopal  and  Methodist  churches.  It  is  perfectly  within 
•our  competence  and  is  demanded  by  our  very  system  of 
church  order,  and  by  our  actual  experience,  as  an  imperative 
duty.  This  subject  is  a  matter  of  too  great  importance  to  be 


83 

left  any  longer  to  the  contingencies  of  individual  discretion 
in  the  field.  It  was  so  thought  in  the  actions  of  1875  and 
1896  of  the  Northern  General  Assembly.  (See  Moore's 
Digest,  Polygamy,  pp.  286,  860.) 

The  absence  of  a  rule  may  mitigate  the  individual  irregu 
larity,  but  by  not  means  authorizes  the  sanction  of  it. 

The  foreign  mission  work  is  the  work  of  the  home 
church:  and  it  is  the  irresponsible  proceeding  of  indi- 
vidual discretion  or  indiscretion  that  has  plunged  our 
church  (at  Luebo)  into  this  foul  polygamous  whirlpool 
to  the  mortification  and  disgust  of  not  a  few.  There 
are  in  that  Luebo  Church  perhaps  15  or  20  polygamous 
families.*  Hence,  this  overture  is  not  dealing  with  an 
abstract  case  en  thesi,  but  with  a  case  de  facto.  These  men 
are  in  the  church  and  cohabiting  with  different  women  with 
the  full  knowledge  and  approval  of  the  missionaries  on  the 
ground,  however  demoralizing,  disgusting,  and  incredible. 
Suppose  that  some  of  those  polygamists — some  of  this  new 
type  of  saints — with  their  two  or  more  wives  were  in  Rich- 
mond now.  Would  you  welcome  them  to  your  private  houses 
or  tables  ?  If  not,  then  would  you  welcome  them  to  the  Lord's 
table?  If  not,  then  your  Christian  judgment  and  your  feel- 
ings are  set  against  this  pollution  of  the  very  fountain  of  the 
communion  of  saints,  and  prompt  you  in  favor  of  this  filtra- 
tion and  exclusion  overture.  But  how  is  this?  The  com- 
munion of  saints  is  catholic.  A  church  communicant  with 
us  anywhere  is  one  everywhere.  This  is  the  only  rule.  A 
sin  excluding  from  the  church  here,  excludes  there. 

*  After  stating  in  public  discourse  and  in  a  letter  to  myself  that  there 
were  fifteen  to  twenty  of  these  polygamous  families,  on  the  floor  of  the 
Virginia  Synod,  at  Biehmond,  Dr.  Morrison  corrected  himself  by  say- 
ing "there  are  five  or  six  polygamous  families  in  the  Luebo  Church. 
The  principle  is  the  same." 


84 

CHAPTER  IX. 

BIBLE  ARGUMENT. 

PART  1.  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

But  back  of  all  this  is  the  question  whether  this  provis- 
ion of  the  Constitution  of  the  church,  which  calk  aloud  for 
some  such  operative  rule  as  is  proposed  in  this  overture,  is 
sustained  by  the  word  of  God.  If  it  .is  thus  sustained,  then 
rebellion  against  it,  is  also  rebellion  against  God.  The  pre- 
sumption is  in  favor  of  the  existing  law,  which  has  had  the 
sanction  of  God's  people  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  for  cen- 
turies, and  also  the  presumption  is  in  favor  of  what- 
ever is  needful  and  proper  to  give  it  operative  efficiency. 
This,  of  course,  casts  the  burden  of  proof,  the  onus 
probandi,  on  the  opposition,  to  show,  if  you  can,  that 
this  accepted  monogamy  law  is  not  scriptural.  But  all  that 
technicality  is  waived;  and  it  is  proposed  now  to  submit  a 
positive  scriptural  support  of  the  constitution  as  it  has  been 
quoted,  and  has  stood  260  years,  and  that  is  the  support  of 
the  rule  proposed  for  enforcement  in  this  overture. 

We  claim  no  power  as  a  church  to  decree  rights  and  cere- 
monies, but  we  do  claim  the  right  and  acknowledge  the  duty 
to  ascertain  and  declare  the  laws  of  our  crowned  King  in 
Zion.  Our  power  and  duty  are  declarative  and  administra- 
tive. We  go  at  once  to  the  Bible  as  the  royal  charter  of  his 
kingdom. 

a.  The  Savior  made  four  distinct  deliverances  on  this  sub- 
ject— the  subject  of  the  conjugal  relation.  Let  us  consider 
them,  for  they  completely  cover  the  case  before  us  : 

(1)  The  first  was  in  the  so-called  Sermon  on  the  Mount 


85 

(Matt,  v:  32) :  "It  was  said  also, — i.  e.,  in  past  time — Whoso- 
ever shall  put  away  his  wife,  let  him  give  her  a  writing  of 
divorcement :  But  I  say  unto  you.  that  every  one  that  putteth 
away  his  wife,  saving  for  the  cause  of  fornication,  maketh 
her  an  adulteress :  and  whosoever  shall  marry  her,  when  she 
is  put  away,  committeth  adultery."  (Deut.  xxiv:  1-2.) 
The  allusion  in  this  passage  is  to  Deut.  xxiv:  1-2,  where  it 
is  provided  that  a  separation  should  be  certified  by  a  writing 
given  to  the  woman  by  the  man.  The  justifiable  reason  for 
this  procedure  is  given  (Heb.)  as  a  matter  of  nakedness, 
an  expression  which  is  equivocal  to  us  and  may  mean  either 
a  physical  or  a  moral  defectiveness.  This  expression  often 
means  sexual  unchasteness  (Levit.  18).  But  how  can  it 
mean  adultery  here  for,  for  that,  she  was  to  die  (Deut. 
xxii:  22),  for  even  the  suspicion  of  it,  the  ordeal  of  the 
waters  of  jealousy  was  prescribed  (Num.  v:  29-31). 
Whereas  the  bill  of  divorce  provided  by  Moses  freely  allowed 
subsequent  marriage — "she  may  -go  and  be  another  man's 
wife."  May  it  not  be  that  the  whole  procedure,  instead  of 
arising  out  of  a  consummated  marriage  relation,  was  ante- 
nuptial? When,  in  oriental  style,  the  bride  elect  was  un- 
veiled, if  some  physical  defect  such  as  sore  eyes,  ugliness  or 
any  unexpected  thing  that  provoked  his  disgust  and  aver- 
sion was  disclosed,  the  nuptial  proceedings  might  end  right 
there,  and  the  man  should  give  a  writing  certifying  the 
dissolution  and  release,  which  would  certify  her  personal 
innocence  and  serve  to  shield  her  against  the  ill  usage  of 
disappointed  and  hard-hearted  kinfolk.  As  a  virgin,  with 
this  clean  paper  in  hand,  her  "nakedness"  or  misfortune 
might  not  discredit  her  in  the  esteem  of  perhaps  as  good  or  a 
better  and  more  sensible  and  considerate  man. 


86 

It  is  easy  to  see  how  this  ante-nuptial  and  extraordinary 
proceeding  might  become  an  occasion  of  perverted  notions 
and  practices  touching  the  real  marriage  relation. 

In  this  instance,  therefore,  the  Savior  seriously  rectifies 
didactically  a  perverted  practice  which  sanctioned  actually 
unwarranted  divorces* — ostensibly  complying  with  certain 
alleged  literalities,  but  neglectful  of  the  true  spirit  of  the 
transaction.  Fancies  give  way  to  facts. 

(2)  The  second  instance  of  his  discoursing  on  the  mar- 
riage relation  is  given  in  Matt,  xix:  2-9  and  Mark  x:  2-9. 
These  go  together. 

There  were  two  Rabbinical  schools — that  of  the  noted 
Hillel,  in  which  very  lax  notions  of  the  conjugal  relation 
were  held,  according  to  which  a  man  was  warranted  in  divorc- 
ing his  actual  wife  for  the  most  whimsical  reasons,  such  as 
over-salting  or  scorching  his  food;  whereas  the  school  of 
Shammai  taught  that  there  must  be  a  grave  moral  cause. 
The  Pharisees  who  came  to  Christ  represented  these  schools, 
and  submitted  to  him,  as  usual,  one  of  their  vexed  questions : 
"Is  it  lawful  for  a  man  to  put  away  his  wife  for  every 
cause  ? — trying  him . ' ' 

"Trying  him" — both  Matthew  and  Mark  use  this  language 
as  indicative  of  the  purpose  of  the  Pharisees  in  propounding 
this  question  about  divorce.  It  is  plainly  implied  that  it 
was  not  a  simple  desire  to  have  his  views  on  this  subject,  but 
a  catch  to  draw  down  on  him  the  wrath  of  Herod 

*In  this  sermon,  which  is  his  inaugural  discourse,  laying  down  the 
true  import  of  the  moral  law  whose  spirit  as  well  as  letter  was  to  be 
satisfied  by  Him,  the  matter  of  divorce  from  the  actual  conjugal  rela- 
tion came  under  this  law,  as  it  was  the  separation  of  what  God  had 
joined;  and  hence  a  separation  for  a  grave  moral  cause  was  deemed 
by  Him  alone  justifiable,  such  as  adultery,  that  destroyed  the  conjugal 
bond.  This  is  a  case  more  serious  than  the  prenuptial  occurrence. 


87 

• 

Antipas,  who  a  year  or  more  previously  had  beheaded  John 
on  account  of  his  disapproval  of  Herod's  divorce  from 
another  wife  and  marrying  Herodias  (Mark  vi:  17-20). 
As  it  was  a  question  in  regard  to  their  law,  he  very 
naturally  asked  them  how  they  understood  their  law-giver. 
They  answered  that  Moses  allowed  it — evidently  leaning  to 
the  perverse  Hillel  laxity.  He  at  once  rectified  their  idea 
that  the  law  of  Moses  (Deut.  xxiv:  1-2)  had  super- 
seded the  law  regulating  the  conjugal  relation  as  orig- 
inally instituted,  and  convincingly  showed  them  it  was  a 
mistake,  and  that  the  concession  or  forbearance  had  been 
exercised  only  temporarily  in  view  of  the  lapsed  and  demor- 
alized condition  of  their  ancestors,  or  it  may  be  that  the  will- 
ful perversion  of  the  true  intent  of  this  statute  was  borne 
with:  and  going  back  of  Shammai,  and  even  Moses,  he  ap- 
pealed to  the  sacred  writings,  whose  authority  all  the  parties 
acknowledged,  as  laying  the  foundation  of  the  conjugal  rela- 
tion in  man's  nature,  as  shown  in  the  fact  of  creation :  "Have 
ye  not  read,  that  he  who  made  them  from  the  beginning 
made  them  male  and  female,  and  said,  For  this  cause  shall  a 
man  leave  his  father  and  mother,  and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife? 
and  the  two  shall  become  one  flesh?  So  that  they  are  no 
more  two,  but  one  flesh.  What  therefore  God  hath  joined 
together,  let  not  man  put  asunder.  And  I  say  unto  you,  who^ 
soever  shall  put  away  his  wife,  except  for  fornication,  and 
shall  marry  another,  committeth  adultery;  and  he  that  mar- 
rieth  her,  when  she  is  put  away,  committeth  adultery."  The 
original  narrative  simply  says  "they  shall  be  one  flesh"  (Gen. 
ii:  24).  He  accepts  the  emphasis  given  to  the  narrative  in 
the  LXX  and  the  Samaritan's  Pentateuch — as  he  accepted  the 
cups  in  the  passover,  and  amplifies  and  thus  emphasizes  the 


88 

• 
original  statement  thus:  "The  two  shall  become  one  flesh. 

So  they  are  no  more  two,  but  one  flesh"  (Matt,  xix:  5,  6). 
It  is  not  possible  that  monogamy  could  be  announced 
more  exclusively  and  absolutely.  He  does  not  give  the  re- 
motest intimation  of  an  allowable  exception  in  the  church 
or  out  of  it. 

It  is  commonly  understood  that  Christ  simply  denied  that 
the  state  tolerated  by  Moses  was  the  original  state.  But  more 
than  this  is  meant.  The  verb  is  in  the  perfect  tense  (Matt. 
xix:  8 — yfyovsv)  and  denotes  the  continuance  of  past 
action  or  its  results,  down  to  the  present.  Then  Christ's 
language  means  that  the  original  ordinance  had  never  been 
abrogated,  nor  suspended,  but  continues  in  force  now  as 
at  the  beginning,  notwithstanding  Moses'  concession '  in 
view  of  the  low  moral  state  of  the  people  in  his  time 
(Ryle).  Toleration  of  certain  circumstances  does  not  mean 
the  abrogation  of  a  right  or  duty,  but  only  the  forbearance 
to  imperatively  and  fully  enforce  it. 

It  is  worth  while  to  note  that  the  toleration  of  anything 
implies  disapproval  and  the  right  to  abrogate  it.  The  thing 
tolerated  would  seem  to  have  been  the  perversion  of  the 
Mosaic  statute,  from  which  perversion  he  now  rescues  it.  If 
these  loose  separations  existed  by  perversion,  that  implies 
their  existence  only  by  forbearance,  and  not  by  ordination  or 
sanction  of  right.  This  is  the  precise  point  brought  out  by 
Christ's  exegesis.  It  should  be  noted  that  there  is  not,  even 
amidst  this  irregularity,  an  intimation  of  simultaneous  polyg- 
amy. The  consequent  consecutive  remarryings  and  unwar- 
ranted separations  are  tabooed.  Hence,  as  it  was  his  indisputa- 
ble and  assumed  right  to  do  so,  he  brushes  aside  the  artificial 
superstructure  of  Rabbinical  traditions  and  perversions  of 


89 

Mosaic  forbearance,  and  re-establishes  on  a  firm  basis  con- 
jugal monogamy  in  its  most  sacred  and  exclusive  form  as 
the  only  lawful  commerce  of  the  sexes  of  the  human  race. 
And  this  law  of  nature  he  sanctifies  and  proclaims  as  the 
law  of  his  kingdom.  So  that  a  refusal  to  submit  to  it  is 
a  refusal  to  submit  to  Him.  He  sets  forth  monogamy  as 
the  universal  law  of  the  race  of  man,  and  especially  of  his 
spiritual  kingdom. 

The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  teaches  that  even  the  desire  of 
sexual  cohabitation  in  any  other  than  the  conjugal  relation 
is  adultery  of  heart.  That  is,  it  is,  though  inward,  if  cher- 
ished, a  gross  sin.  This  powerful  impulse  which  replenishes 
the  earth  with  its  inhabitants  is  a  natural,  right,  and  virtuous 
constituent  of  humanity,  but  the  Creator  has  assigned  to  it  as 
fixed  boundaries,  as  to  the  sea,  any  transgression  of  which  in 
thought,  word,  or  deed  is  sinful — is  wrong  and  pernicious. 
All  civilized  nations,  especially  such  as  have  commercial  in- 
terests, pursue  pirates  to  the  death  because  esteemed  the  ene- 
mies of  the  race.  Polygamy  is  an  infinitely  worse  enemy. 
The  plausible  pretext  that  it  favors  increase  of  population 
above  monogamy  statistics  ethnologically  show  to  be  a  mis- 
take. It  is  race  suicide.* 

(3)  The  third  deliverance  of  Christ  on  the  marriage  rela- 
tion was  in  private.  Mark  x:  10-12,  tells  us  that  "in  the  house 
the  disciples  asked  him  again  of  the  matter.  This  interview 
occured  just  after  the  above-noticed  public  discussion  with 
the  Pharisees,  and  to  it  belongs  Mark  x :  10-12  and  Matt,  xix : 
10-12.  It  was  not  unusual  for  his  disciples  to  ask  him 
privately  about  his  public  teaching,  as  in  the  case  of  the  par- 

*  Wayland,  in  his  Moral  Science,  adduces  evidence  that  polygamy 
does  not  favor  increase  of  population.  The  claim  is  fallacious. 


90 

able  of  the  sower.  It  was  in  this  third  discourse  on  this  topic 
that  he  silenced  their  complaint  against  marrying,  if  his 
teachings  were  to  be  received,  by  telling  them  that  certain 
parties  were  by  nature  or  by  inflicted  mutilation  incompetent 
to  marry, — and  that  there  were  some  circumstances,  as  in  the 
case  of  Paul,  when  voluntary  celibacy  was  proper.  But  in 
this  third  discourse  he  did  not  fail  to  set  forth  the  sin  of 
divorce,  as  before.  Amongst  the  born  incompetents,  not  to 
speak  of  earlier  instances,  three  well  known  in  modern  times 
could  be  named,  equally  pre-eminent  severally  in  states- 
manship, literature  and  scholarship. 

(4)  The  fourth  discourse  on  this  subject  is  recorded  in 
Luke  xvi:  14-18.  It  is  addressed  to  covetous  Pharisees  who 
scoffed  at  his  teachings,  because  they  coveted  not  only  the 
property  but  the  very  household  gods  of  their  neighbors. 
And  he  said  unto  them,  "Ye  are  they  that  justify  yourselves 
in  the  sight  of  men ;  but  God  knoweth  your  hearts." 

In  the  third  discourse  with  the  disciples  in  the  house,  he 
added  a  novel  element  to  his  discourses  which  we  may  now 
notice.  In  that  instance  he  placed  the  right  of  the  wife,  in 
the  matter  of  divorce,  on  the  same  level  and  footing  as  that 
of  the  husband.  It  was  probably  the  placing  of  the  conjugal 
rights  of  woman  on  this  perfect  equality  with  those  of  man, 
that  so  startled  his  hearers  that  they  were  bewildered  and  re- 
marked that  in  that  case  it  was  best  not  to  marry. 

"And  he  saith  unto  them:  Whosoever  shall  put  away  his 
wife,  and  marry  another,  committeth  adultery  against  her: 
and  if  she  herself  shall  put  away  her  husband,  and  marry 
another,  she  committeth  adultery."  Mark  x:  12. 

This  idea  of  a  woman  divorcing  her  husband,  though  com- 
mon in  the  surrounding  heathen  world  of  Greeks  and  Ro- 
mans, was  in  Jewish  circles  an  astounding  novelty. 


91 

"Moses  punished  adultery  in  male  and  female  alike.  This 
was  just/'  And  the  penalty  was  death.  (Deut.  xxii:  21-25). 

The  law  of  monogamy  in  Christ's  kingdom  is  simply  the 
original  monogamous  law  of  nature  instituted  at  man's  crea- 
tion, sanctified  and  brought  into  its  highest  spiritual  rela- 
tions in  the  church  of  Christ. 

The  deliverances  of  Christ  on  the  conjugal  relation  ought 
to  go  with  the  GREAT  COMMISSION  in  our  missionary  work. 

b.  Yes:  The  teaching  of  Christ  as  exclusively  monoga- 
mous is  in  words  readily  accepted;  and  yet,  as  though  that 
did  not  settle  the  question  by  his  supreme  authority  in  the 
church,  it  is  surprising  to  what  extent  Christ's  plain  and  un- 
equivocal teaching,  as  we  have  just  convincingly  seen  it,  is 
qualified  in  the  minds  and  practice  of  many  by  a  plausible, 
but  hasty  inference  from  passages  in  Timothy,  ch.  iii :  2  and 
12,  and  Titus  i:  6. 

I  Tim.  iii:  2 — "The  bishop  therefore  must  be  with- 
out reproach,  the  husband  of  one  wife;"  and  verse  12 — 
"Let  deacons  be  husbands  of  one  wife,  ruling  their  children 
and  their  own  houses  well." 

And  Titus,  ch.  i :  5,  6 :  "For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete, 
that  thou  shouldst  set  in  order  the  things  that  were  wanting, 
and  appoint  elders  in  every  city,  as  I  gave  thee  charge ;  if  any 
man  is  blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife,  having  children 
that  believe,  who  are  not  accused  of  riot  or  unruly." 

A  proper  interpretation  of  these  passages  of  scripture 
shows  them  to  be  unqualifiedly  confirmatory  of  the  conserv- 
ative monogamous  and  anti-polygamous  views  of  Christ  as 
set  forth  in  his  several  discourses  just  considered. 

1.  The  first  inference  from  these  passages  that  will  be 
noted  is  that,  the  requirement  that  these  church  officers,  the 


92 

elder  and  the  deacon — indeed  the  only  permanent  officers  in 
the  church  of  Christ — must  be  the  husbands  each  of  one  wife, 
implies  that  there  were  polygamists  in  the  church.  Why 
require  that  these  officers  be  monogamists  unless  there  were 
polygamists  in  the  church,  on  whom  was  visited  the  penalty 
or  mark  of  disapproval  as  being  on  that  account  disqualified 
for  holding  office  in  the  church,  i.  e.  church  members  that 
did  not  on  account  of  their  polygamy  have  the  favor  and 
confidence  of  God  as  competent  to  hold  office. 

Every  one  must  acknowledge  a  jolt  at  the  idea  of  a  group 
or  definite  class  of  church  members  being  discredited  as  a 
class  from  office-holding,  but  having  the  right  of  suffrage 
(Acts,  xiv:  23  Gr.),  which  is  more  vital  than  office-holding. 

The  most  that  can  be  said  for  this  inference  is  that  it  is 
superficially  plausible ;  but  it  is  by  no  means  a  necessary  in- 
ference, nor  even  the  most  probable  one.  Indeed  there  are 
several  other  inferences  each  of  which  is  certainly  more  prob- 
able than  this  one,  and  each  of  which  is  exclusive  of  polyg- 
amy, as  will  be  seen.  Above,  p.  15. 

A  ready  analogical  refutation  of  this  first  inference  is 
found  in  ch.  v:  9,  of  this  I  Timothy:  "Let  none  be  enrolled 
as  a  widow  under  three-score  years  old,  having  been  the  wife 
of  one  man."  This  was  a  serious  business  reckoning  relative 
to  benevolent  support.  The  church  members  were  poor  and 
what  affected  money  expense  was  scrutinized  narrowly. 

The  forms  of  expression,  "husband  of  one  wife"  and  "wife 
of  one  husband,"  are  (in  the  Greek)  identical,  differing  only 
in  gender  and  case.  In  each  case  husband  and  wife  are  with- 
out the  article.  If  there  is  any  difference  in  meaning  it  must 
arise  from  the  context,  but  they  are  both  in  the  same  short 
letter,  and  the  context  in  the  latter  case  as  certainly  implies 


93 

plurality  of  husbands  as  in  the  former  plurality  of  wives. 
These  expressions  are  in  the  same  epistle.  The  simple  truth 
is  that  neither  simultaneous  nor  consecutive  polygamy  is  im- 
plied in  either  case.  Such  an  inference  as  this  first  one  is 
hasty,  superficial,  and  false.  This  alone  should  check  this 
crude  inference  on  which  some  missionaries  have  conscien- 
tiously acted  to  the  confusion  of  the  church. 

In  the  Centenary  London  Missionary  Conference  of  1888, 
this  very  analogy  was  given  by  a  missionary  as  a  reason  for 
repudiating  the  polygamous  exegesis  of  these  scriptures,  and 
it  was  not  answered.  He  denied,  and  with  reason,  that  Paul 
recognized  polygamy  in  the  apostolic  church;  and  we  shall 
learn  further  from  Paul  himself,  and  from  the  antiquities 
and  history  of  the  primitive  church,  that  there  is  no  warrant 
for  this  inference,  nor  for  this  horrid  doctrine  of  polygamy 
in  the  apostolic  church.  But  further — 

2.  A  second  view  is  that  the  bishop  or  elder  and  the  deacon 
must  be  married  men — must  as  certainly  be  married  men  as 
"without  reproach."  But  let  it  be  noticed  that  whatever 
force  this  view  has  it  is  in  favor  of  monogamy  and  against 
polygamy — "must  be  the  husband  of  one  wife." 

It  is  obvious  to  remark  that  this  would  have  excluded  Paul 
himself  from  official  position  in  the  church,  but  would  not 
have  excluded  Peter.  But  it  is  exclusive  of  polygamy  in  any 
case.  Yet  the  verb  "must"  gives  an  exegetical  force  to  this 
view  greater  than  to  the  former.  The  view  suggested  at  first 
blush  is  surely  not  the  true  one.  The  pass  between  Senator 
Hoar  and  the  Mormon  President  (Smith)  will  illustrate  this. 
When  the  Smoot  case  was  before  the  Senate  committee  which 
was  inquiring  into  the  question  whether  Smoot  should  be 
ousted  from  his  seat  in  the  United  States  Senate,  because  he 


94 

was  a  Mormon,  allusion  having  been  made  to  the  Christian's 
Bible,  the  venerable  Senator  Hoar,  a  devoted  Unitarian, 
quoted  this  scripture — that  the  bishop  must  be  the  husband 
of  one  wife.  Yes,  says  Smith,  at  least  of  one,  but  it  does  not 
exclude  more  than  one.  This  rejoinder  is,  really,  simply  a 
piece  of  plausible  flippancy.  Yet  it  shows  how  a  shallow 
ripple,  or  refluent  wave  on  the  surface,  may  divert  attention 
from  the  deep  underflow  of  the  current  in  precisely  the  oppo- 
site direction.  And  this  is  believed  to  be  true  respecting 
these  two  epistles  when  construed  as  favoring  polygamy. 

3.  The  third  view,  and  it  is  held  very  confidently,  espe- 
cially by  many   able   prelatical   commentators,  is   that   the 
bishop    and    deacon    must    marry    but  once.      If    one    of 
them  lose  his  wife  and  marry  again,  that  would  disqualify 
him  for  the  office.     Tertullian  speaks  of  parties  deposed  for 
that  offense.     But  this  is  in  contradiction  of  scripture  else- 
where, notably  of  Paul,  who  elsewhere  plainly  teaches  the 
right  of  remarriage  as  in  Romans  vii:  3  and  I  Cor.  vii:  8-9. 

The  scriptural  right  of  remarriage  by  the  innocent  divorced 
cannot  in  this  connection  be  properly  questioned. 

Again  polygamy  is  utterly  and  emphatically  discredited. 
If  a  man  is  to  marry  but  once,  he  can,  of  course,  be  neither 
a  simultaneous  nor  consecutive  polygamist. 

4.  But  there  is  a  fourth  view  which  has  strong  claims. 
The  main  object  evidently  before  the  mind  of  the  apostle 
was  that  of  exemplary  families  on  the  part  of  the  church 
officers.     If  any  man  had  lived  in  polygamous  relations  prior 
to  joining  the  church,  in  all  likelihood  the  rags  of  polygamy 
would  still  hang  about  him — cling  to  him — as  an  inevitable 
part  of  his  environment.     This  state  of  things  would  likely 
mar  the  family  example  which  he  would  be  able  to  set  before 


95 

the  congregation  and  the  world.  The  disability  of  holding 
office  under  such  conditions  would  seem  to  be  reasonable.  It 
would  be  an  unavoidable  consequence  of  his  former  state — a 
scar  from  that  wound.  It  would  not  be  a  disability  arising 
from  a  tolerated  sinful  relation,  but  from  the  old  abandoned 
life.  Here,  then,  is  a  fourth  view  which  is  equally  gram- 
matical and  vastly  more  Pauline  and  probable  than  the  first, 
and,  again,  instead  of  a  sanction,  it  is  a  condemnation  of 
polygamy. 

5.  A  fifth  view  may  have  more  in  its  support  than  may 
appear  at  first  glance.  It  is  an  injunction  of  personal  and 
official  chastity.  In  this  view  the  injunction  is  an  official 
curb  or  restraint  on  lust,  on  the  part  of  the  church  officials — 
an  elder  or  a  deacon — from  the  charms  of  other  women  than 
their  own  wives.  Those  in  official  relations  to  a  mixed  body, 
and  especially  where  free  social  intercourse  is  indeed  a  duty, 
as  in  the  Christian  church,  are  specially  exposed  to  this 
temptation.  It  amounts  to  a  pertinent  and  highly  reasonable 
warning  based  on  the  tenth  commandment:  "Neither  shalt 
thou  covet  thy  neighbor's  wife."  Paul's  personal  experience 
of  covetousness  as  a  principle  opened  his  eyes  wide  to  this 
kind  of  sin.  He  says:  "I  had  not  known  sin,  but  by  the 
law ;  for  I  had  not  known  lust,  except  the  law  had  said,  Thou 
shalt  not  covet."  This  lust  is  entirely  internal,  and  when 
Paul  saw  that  the  law  took  account  of  this  strictly  subjective 
state,  then  it  was  he  understood  its  spiritual  import  as  in 
Rom.  chs.  vi  and  vii.  This  amounts  to  a  positive  interdict  of 
even  the  spirit  of  polygamy  by  applying  the  teaching  of  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount.  The  injunction  of  Hernias  is  that 
habitual  loving  thoughts  of  one's  own  wife  is  the  best  pre- 
ventive of  this  unchastity.  Moreover,  this  fifth  view  exactly 


96 

falls  in  with  the  Savior's  rebuke  of  the  shuffling  of  wives — 
of  divorcing  .and  remarrying  wives  with  reckless  and  licen- 
tious levity,  then  become  common  among  both  Jews  and 
Gentiles  and  favored  by  perverse  rabbinical  traditions:  "Be 
conscientiously  and  religiously  content  with  the  wives  in 
providence  alloted  to  you  and  lust  not  for  cohabitation  with 
other  women,  and  set  an  example  before  the  flock  of  devout 
chastity."  As  Paul  elsewhere  teaches  (Eph.,  v:  25) :  "Hus- 
bands, love  your  wives,  even  as  Christ  also  loved  the  church 
and  gave  himself  for  it." 

Now,  here  are  stated  five  allowable  constructions  of  the 
quoted  language  of  those  letters  to  Timothy  and  Titus :  and 
(1)  it  must  be  in  fairness  conceded  that  the  first,  which  is 
burdened  with  the  assumption  of  polygamy  in  the  apostolic 
church,  is  the  least  satisfactory  of  the  list.  There  is  not  a 
particle  of  collateral  evidence  in  support  of  this  naked  view 
that  polygamy  found  its  way  into  the  bosom  of  the  apostolic 
church.  (2)  But  there  is,  we  shall  see,  much  constraining 
evidence  to  the  contrary. 

So  much  for  the  direct  consideration  of  these  passages 
which  have  been  taken  as  of  doubtful  import;  but  if  so, 
they  should  yield  to  the  clearer  light  of  other  Scripture, 
especially,  as  we  have  seen,  to  the  Savior's  positive  teaching. 

o.  I  will  add  the  teaching  of  Paul  himself  elsewhere,  con- 
firmative of  the  interpretation  given: 

(1)  It  might  and  perhaps  should  be  noted  that,  in  closing 
the  second  chapter  of  I  Timothy,  the  apostle's  mind  was  in- 
tensely occupied  with  the  conjugal  relation  of  Adam  and  Eve 
in  Eden.  In  speaking  of  the  proprieties  of  woman's  dress 
and  deportment  and  of  her  disability  to  teach  and  rule  in 
the  church  as  consequent  on  mother  Eve's  rash  and  disastrous 


97 

leadership  in  Eden,  he  relieved  the  situation  by  a  distinct 
allusion  to  the  first  promise  that  her  maternity  should  minis- 
ter to  the  relief  of  our  fallen  state  by  giving  birth  to  a  re- 
deemer. And  as  the  foundation  of  this  hopeful  view  he  says, 
(not  the  adverbial  clause),  "It  is  a  faithful  saying/'  but  "The 
Logos  is  faithful"  i.  e.,  The  Jehovah  who  gave  that  promise 
that  "the  seed  of  the  woman  should  bruise  the  serpent's  head" 
is  faithful  in  having  fulfilled  the  same.  Paul  has  as  distinct 
a  doctrine  of  the  Logos  as  John,  the  essential  and  practical 
character  of  which  is  the  fidelity  of  the  Logos  to  His  promise 
of  salvation  made  to  the  monogamous  twain  in  Eden  and 
especially  to  our  monogamous  mother  Eve.  (See  I  Tim.,  i: 
15.)  All  the  promises  of  salvation  are  yea  and  amen  in 
Christ  Jesus. 

I  do  not  know  of  another  instance  in  our  Sacred  Scriptures 
where  a  substantive  sentence,  with  its  subject  by  the  definite 
article  grammatically  distinguished  from  its  predicate,  is  so 
misconceived,  esmasculated  and  degraded  as  in  this  case.  A 
distinct,  substantive  reason  is  degraded  into  an  adverbial 
clause !  This  criticism  is  based  on  the  Greek  text  of  Westcott 
and  Hort. 

Now.  my  point  is  this,  the  preoccupation  of  the  apostle's 
mind  with  the  monogamous  state  of  our  first  parents  in  Eden 
and  also  at  the  time  of  the  protevangelic  promise,  for  whose 
realization  in  the  organized  Christian  church  he  was  here 
providing,  is  an  appreciable  presumption  against  any  con- 
cession whatever  to  polygamy  in  what  immediately  follows, 
as  would  be  the  case  were  polygamists  recognized  as  having 
church  membership  and  church  suffrage  (Acts,  xiv:  23), 
among  the  agencies  for  destroying  the  works  of  Satan.  He 
certainly  would  not  be  expected  to  countenance  the  slightest 
7 


98 

collusion  with  such  a  work  of  Satan  as  polygamy.  It  is  doing 
violence  to  the  whole  spirit  of  his  teaching  and  practice  to 
suppose  that  he  would  tolerate  this  leaven  of  heathenism  in 
the  church. 

(2)  But  there  are  some  further  and  important  considera- 
tions   which    help    to    render    this    polygamous    inference 
violently  improbable.     We  must  assume  that  Timothy  and 
Titus  are  letters  of  Paul,  and  in  ascertaining  their  import  his 
explicit  and  positive  teaching  in  other  writings  on  the  con- 
jugal relation  must  be  reckoned  with;  and  that  teaching  is 
absolutely  incompatible  with  this  polygamous  view. 

It  is  a  circumstance  of  no  little  interest  that  Paul  speaks 
more  fully,  more  searchingly  and  philosophically,  if  I  may 
say  so,  than  any  other  inspired  writer  on  the  relation  of  the 
sexes.  Some  have  lamented  that  he  did  not  expressly  exclude 
polygamy  from  the  church,  and  have  gone  to  sleep  under  the 
music  of  their  moanings,  surprisingly  oblivious  and  neglect- 
ful of  the  fact  that  he  has  in  plain  language  done  that  very 
thing.  In  a  writing  preceding  those  letters  to  Timothy  and 
Titus  this  is  unequivocally  done;  I  refer  to  I  Corinthians 
and  Ephesians  especially,  though  not  exclusively. 

(3)  I  Cor.  vii:  2.    The  language  enjoining  monogamy  on 
church  members,  positively  excludes  plurality  from  the  con- 
jugal relation.     Listen:    "Let  each  man  have  his  own  wife 
and  each  woman  have  her  own  husband."    And  immediately 
preceding  this,  in  the  sixth  chapter,  verse  18,  he  actually 
quotes  the  teaching  of  Christ  on  the  subject:    "The  twain, 
saith  He    (God  or  Christ)    shall  become  one  flesh."     In 
Ephesians,  ch.  vi:  28-31,  Paul  repeats  the  same  anti-polyga- 
mous doctrine  with  a  sacred  and  profound  emphasis  and 
quotes  Christ's  language  again.  The  Apostle  evidently  draws 


99 

on  the  personal  instruction  he  had  received  from  Christ.  See 
Gal.  i  :  12. 

(4)  Moreover,  what  must  not  be  overlooked  in  this  con- 
nection, he  says:  "We  are  members  of  his  (Christ's)  body." 
Our  bodies  are  identified  with  Christ's  body.  In  I  Cor.,  vi, 
this  bodily  aspect  of  the  sex  relation  is  somewhat  dwelt  on. 
It  is  there  said,  as  the  underlying  principle  of  monogamy; 
"But  the  body  is  not  for  fornication  (or  polygamy),  but  for 
the  Lord :  -and  the  Lord  for  the  body ;  and  God  hath  raised 
the  Lord  and  will  raise  up  us  through  his  power.  Know  ye 
not  that  your  bodies  are  members  of  Christ?"  There  is  a 
most  intimate  and  divinely  constituted  union  between  our 
bodies  and  the  body  of  Christ ;  however  mysterious,  it  is  real, 
so  that  the  prostitution  of  our  bodies  to  any  uncleanness  is 
to  befoul  the  sacred  body  of  Christ  himself:  "Shall  I  then 
take  away  the  members  of  Christ  (i.  e.  so  divert  or  alienate 
the  members  of  our  bodies  from  their  proper  and  sacred  func- 
tions and  relations  to  Christ  as  to)  "make  them  members  of  a 
harlot?"  God  forbid !  Or  know  ye  not  that  he  that  is  joined 
to  a  harlot — by  intimacy  (?) — is  one  body?  He  that 
committeth  fornication  (i.  e.  any  act  of  sexual  intercourse  by 
man  with  any  other  than  his  wedded  wife,  or  by  a  woman 
with  any  other  than  her  wedded  husband)  is  guilty  of  un- 
cleanness and  (he  that  is  guilty  of  such  uncleanness)  sinneth 
against  his  or  her  own  body.  Or  know  ye  not  that  your  body 
is  a  temple  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  is  in  you,  which  ye  have 
from  God?  And  ye  are  not  your  own;  for  ye  were  bought 
with  a  price;  glorify  God  therefore  in  your  body."  (I  Cor., 
ch.  vi:  12-20). 

That  is  to  say,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has  a  rightful  claim 
on  the  body  of  every  redeemed  saint,  and  the  misusing  of 


100 

this  body  is  misusing  the  property  and  bodily  members  of 
Christ  himself,  just  as  certainly  as  desecrating  his  temple  is 
a  sacrilege  against  consecrated  property  belonging  to  God. 
This  claim  of  Christ  is  alike  individually  on  all  married  or 
unmarried,  and  binds  them  in  the  holy  bonds  of  personal 
chastity.  His  relation  to  his  bride,  the  church,  is  monog- 
amous. 

(5)  Over  and  above  this  idea  of  Christ's  sacred  ownership 
of  the  bodies  of  His  redeemed  people,  there  is  an  additional 
and  unique  feature  of  Paul's  discussion  of  the  conjugal  rela- 
tion in  this  connection,  which  is  entitled  to  special  considera- 
tion. It  is  that  of  a  rightful  and  reciprocal  and  exclusive 
proprietorship  of  husband  and  wife  in  each  other  as  husband 
and  wife.  I  Cor.  vii :  3,  4 :  "Let  the  husband  render  unto  the 
wife  her  due;  and  likewise  also  the  wife  unto  the  husband. 
The  wife  hath  not  power  over  her  own  body,  but  the  hus- 
band ;  and  likewise  also  the  husband  hath  not  power  over  his 
own  body,  but  the  wife."  This  ownership  is  not  only  right- 
ful and  reciprocal,  but  exclusive.  The  language  is  very 
strong.  It  is  this  rightful  and  inalienable  power  of  each  over 
the  disposal  of  the  other  that  is  in  strict  terms  in  the  original 
here  vested  alike  in  husband  and  wife  as  such.  In  wedding 
each  makes  a  self-surrender  to  the  ownership  of  the  other  as 
husband  and  as  wife.  It  will  be  recalled  that  it  was  pointed 
out  in  considering  the  third  discourse  of  the  Savior  on  the 
conjugal  relation,  that  he,  to  the  bewildering  surprise  of  his 
disciples  themselves,  (Mark  x:  12),  placed  the  wife  on  the 
same  footing  of  right  and  freedom  of  action  as  the  husband 
touching  the  rights  and  duties  of  the  conjugal  relation.  It 
was  and  is  now  the  onesided  doctrine  of  heathenism  that  the 
man  alone  has  rightful  proprietorship  and  control  of  the 


101 

wife;  but  Christ  announces  that  the  wife  has  a  like  proprietor- 
ship and  a  control  over  the  man  as  husband.  This  was  a 
doctrine  in  Israel  of  woman's  rights  hitherto  unheard  of. 
Nor  is  it  even  now  heeded  as  it  should  be.  It  is  radical 
and  true  as  to  the  same  individual  thing.  The  apostle 
here  enforces  that  doctrine  identically  as  though  he 
had  just  come  from  the  lesson  on  the  subject  taught 
by  Christ.  The  subjection  of  the  wife  to  the  hus- 
band as  a  "helpmeet"  does  not  absolve,  nor  even  compro- 
mise, her  inalienable  conjugal  rights.  Right  and  duty  are 
reciprocal — her  right  and  his  duty.  His  right  and  her  duty. 
She  has  a  right,  as  to  her  own  life,  to  his  honor  and  chas- 
tity, and  he  is  correspondingly  under  obligation.  Such 
views  and  teaching  are  intelligible  only  on  the  ground  of 
monogamy.  Right  and  duty  are  always  compatible  and 
reciprocal,  and  it  is  not  even  thinkable  or  possible  that  two 
or  more  persons  should  individually  have  the  same  exclusive 
rights. 

This  cuts  up  polygamy  by  the  roots  on  natural  principles. 

Angels  neither  marry  nor  are  given  in  marriage;  but  men 
and  women  are  corporeal  beings,  and  are  not  angels. 

THE  THREE  MONOGAMOUS  NATIONS. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that,  among  other  considera- 
tions, there  is  not  in  the  New  Testament  a  recorded  instance 
of  polygamy  by  the  Jews  in  the  apostolic  times;  besides,  a 
circumstance  not  sufficiently  considered,  the  Greeks  and 
Romans  were  monogamous  nations,  so  that  the  class  of 
polygamists  so  called  was  not  comparatively  numerous 
among  the  peoples  from  whom  Christianity  gathered  its 


102 

early  converts,  and  their  polygamy  was  lawless  concubinage. 
Moreover,  the  poor  are  always  monogamists,  and  they  were 
the  converts  and  not  the  rich. 

In  Homer,  monogamy  is  assumed  to  be  the  natural  condi- 
tion, yet  with  wives  concubines  are  associated  and  mentioned, 
and  the  sharp  distinction  between  alien  and  citizen  enforced 
this  monogamy,  as  only  the  legal  wives  bore  citizens.  Whilst 
the  court  of  Priam  bears  much  resemblance  to  that  of  a 
polygamous  monarch,  yet  Hecuba  alone  has  the  title  of 
wife.  It  is  said  by  Demosthenes,  in  one  of  his  speeches: 
"We  have  concubines  for  our  pleasure  and  daily  attendance 
on  our  persons,  but  wives  that  we  may  beget  legitimate  chil- 
dren and  have  faithful  guardians  of  our  households."  This 
is  the  plain  prose  of  the  situation — a  certain  sentimental  duty 
to  the  state  demanded  the  wife  and  loyalty  to  lust  the  con- 
cubine. And  Plato's  promiscuity  is  the  world's  amazement, 
notwithstanding  his  specious  defense.  And  yet  the  impar- 
tiality and  unselfishness  in  administration  aimed  at  were 
commendable.  "But  in  Greece  monogamy  alone  was  recog- 
nized by  law."  (Smith's  Gr.  &  R.,  Ant.  Sub.  Matrimonum.) 

As  to  Rome,  Gibbon,  vol.  3,  p.  687,  says:  "The  inclina- 
tion of  the  Roman  husband  discharged  or  withheld  the  con- 
jugal debt,  so  scrupulously  exacted  by  Athenian  and  Jewish 
laws;  but  as  polygamy  was  unknown,  he  could  never  admit 
to  his  bed  a  fairer  or  more  favored  partner." 

Both  Grecian  and  Roman  law  and  usage  were  in  fact 
monogamous ;  but  in  obedience  to  individual  lust  and  wilful- 
ness,  matrimony  was  licentiously  incrusted  and  overlaid  by 
concubinage.  But  men  were  never  married  to  their  concu- 
bines and  hence  the  heathen  themselves  did  not  regard  nor 
treat  them  as  wives. 


103 

As  the  Jews  who  were  monogamous,  were  in  all  the 
churches,  it  is  hardly  credible  that  they  would  silently  have 
acquiesced  in  receiving  heathen  polygamy,  which  was  wholly 
concubinous,  into  the  Christian  church,  when  they  had 
in  their  whole  history  associated  polygamy  with  hated  poly- 
theism and  monogamy  with  the  relation  of  Israel  to  Israel's 
God.  The  polygamous  departures  from  this  fundamental 
law  of  monogamy  were  wholly  individual  and  exceptional 
and  never  national  with  the  Jewish  people. 

The  heathen  custom  is  to  esteem  and  treat  the  wife  as  a 
chattel  bought  or  captured,  so  that,  to  a  great  extent,  she  may 
be  beaten,  sold,  enslaved,  or  slain  by  him  with  impunity. 
And  he  alone  has  the  right  of  repudiation,  or  divorce,  whilst 
she  is  the  helpless  victim  of  wrong  and  outrage.  This  one- 
sidedness  prevailed  even  among  the  Jews  in  the  Savior's 
time.  But  it  is  trufc  that,  this  one-sided  practice  had  already 
been  surprisingly  and  capriciously  changed  in  the  classic  na- 
tions of  Greece  and  Rome,  and  women  rushed  to  the  op- 
posite extreme  and  reckoned  the  passing  of  life  not  by 
the  years  of  the  consuls,  but  by  the  frequency  of 
changing  their  husbands  for  every,  or  any,  or  no  cause. 
The  Saviour  struck  at  the  root  of  all  this  by  recognizing 
woman's  conjugal  rights,  as  well  as  her  duties,  as  equal 
to  those  of  man,  and  equally  restraining  both  parties 
by  laying  down  adultery  as  the  ground  of  separa- 
tion by  either  (to  which  death  and  persistent  abandonment 
are  by  Paul  added).  In  which  case  of  separation  only  the 
innocent  party  is  free  to  marry  again,  sinless.  In  the  con- 
jugal relation  Paul  enjoins  love  as  its  supreme  bond  what- 
ever the  conditions  of  mating.  To  plead,  as  is  done  in  cer- 
tain cases,  that  as  wives  are  assigned  without  choice,  hence 


104 

there  is  no  obligation  of  love,  would  also  excuse  from  filial 
love  to  parents.  This  is  a  heathen  fallacy  and  pretext,  as  in 
China,  Japan,  and  elsewhere,  in  apologizing  for  polygamy. 
The  voluntary  acceptance  and  acquiescence  carries  the  moral 
obligation. 

This  restriction  of  one  man  to  one  woman  is  rational,  and 
shows  the  discernment  of  an  expert,  that,  in  this  matter,  the 
weaker  is  in  fact  the  stronger  vessel,  relative  to  which  poly- 
andria  furnishes  a  telling  suggestion.  No ;  the  fundamental 
fault  in  this  whole  unclean  business  is  that  husbands  do  not 
love  their  wives  as  the  apostle  enjoins,  and  God  makes  their 
duty  whatever  may  be  the  conditions  of  mating.  In  the 
Japanese  Bride  which  unveils  the  domestic  customs  of  that 
country,  it  is  said:  "It  will  seem  strange  to  people  having 
such  ideas  (as  Americans)  that  there  is  no  such  thing  in 
Japan  as  marriage  for  love,  and  the  Japanese  place  love  and 
brutal  attachment  on  the  same  plane.  The  Japanese  word 
love  (horeru),  as  applied  to  a  woman,  signifies  a  very  corrupt 
character  (p.  13).  "It  is  very  clear  that  we  do  not  marry  for 
love:  The  man  who  breaks  this  rule  and  pretends  to  marry 
for  love  is  looked  on  as  a  mean  fellow  and  his  parents  are 
ashamed  of  him"  (p.  2) .  Marrying  is  less  a  personal  than  a 
family  affair,  and  is  arranged  by  the  Nakodo,  or  go-between. 
Confucius  is  held  responsible  for  these  sentiments,  and  his 
pernicious  influence  is  fortified  by  Buddhism,  which  teaches 
that  "woman  is  impure  and  a  scapegoat,  and  cannot  exert 
other  than  evil  influence  over  man"  (pp.  12,  2,  13,  72).  The 
polygamy  in  Japan  is  as  notoriously  mere  vulgar  concu- 
binage as  in  China,  or  as  it  was  among  the  classic  nations. 

It  is  sometimes  pleaded  in  palliation  of  polygamous  unions 
in  heathen  lands  that  the  exacting  claims  of  offspring,  partic- 


105 

ularly  with  reference  to  the  perpetuation  of  the  family  name 
and  the  maintenance  of  ancestral  worship,  that  the  true  wife, 
when  barren,  often  encourages  her  husband  to  such  an  alli- 
ance; and  it  might  be  said  that  somewhat  similarly  Sarah 
prompted  Abraham,  and  Leah  and  Rachel  Jacob  to  like 
mesalliances.  But  in  all  such  cases  a  fundamental  arid  gov- 
erning principle  of  right  asserts  itself  in  that  no  one  has  the 
right  to  do  wrong,  nor  to  influence  or  authorize  another  to  do 
wrong.  That  polygamy  is  wrong  and  sinful  is  not  in  dispute. 
Hence  there  can  be  no  human  authorization  of  it.  It  argues 
a  sad  moral  degradation.  And  who  does  not  see  that  a  mod- 
erate installment  of  Christian  instruction  would  generally 
awaken  the  conscience  against  such  connivance.  The  wife 
does  not  in  such  case  know  her  right  and  duty,  even  aside 
from  trust  in  God. 

Let  no  one  intimate  that  these  relative  duties  hold  good 
only  in  the  sphere  of  the  Christian  life,  and  not  of  the 
heathen  in  his  blindness  and  ignorance.  It  is  true  that  they 
are  illuminated,  intensified  and  sanctified  in  the  Christian 
sphere,  but  they  do  not  originate  there,  nor  are  they  confined 
thereto.  The  conjugal  relation  is  founded  in  the  nature  of 
man  as  created  male  and  female ;  and  as  an  existing  enduring 
and  normal  condition  of  man,  it  is  recognized,  purified  and 
sacredly  enforced  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  The  nature  of 
man  is  the  same  everywhere;  and  ultimately  the  relative 
duties  arising  therefrom  are  the  same.  It  is  the  aim  and  the 
effect  of  Christianity  to  slough  off  these  distortions,  which  are 
no  more  entitled  to  observance  than  the  perverse  traditions 
which  Christ  brushed  aside.  Circumstances  do  not  and  can- 
not change  the  nature  of  the  case,  and  hence  the  folly  and 
fallacy  of  missionaries  growling  at  and  scolding  home  Chris- 


108 

tians  as  not  understanding  polygamy  and  as  poorly  entitled 
to  any  opinions  on  the  subject.  The  simple  truth  is  that  all 
the  essential  and  concrete  elements  of  polygamy  are  just  as 
well  understood  by  home  Christians  as  by  missionaries  in  the 
field,  and  it  may  be  in  many  respects  vastly  better,  as  less 
influenced  by  warping  prejudice  and  covering  a  wider  and 
more  varied  field.  One  of  the  laments  of  missionaries  is  their 
comparatively  individual  isolation. 

1  will  submit  an  extract  from  Schaff-Herzog  on  marriage : 
"Marriage  is  the  union  of  a  male  and  female  human  being, 
without  which  (union)  there  could  be  no  family,  no 
parental  care,  no  developed  political  communities,  no 
general  society  of  mankind.  It  is,  in  its  essence,  not 
only  a  union  of  hearts  but  a  physical  union  *  *  * 
Christ  sanctioned  this  view  of  it  and  added,  what  God 
hath  joined  together  let  not  man  put  asunder.  *  *  * 
It  is  thus  (a  natural  and)  a  religious  ordinance,  (not  a 
transient  contrivance  of  man,  but)  contrived  and  instituted 
by  God  which  is  to  control  the  whole  human  race  as  long  as 
the  present  laws  of  earth  and  man  shall  endure."  Dr.  Shedd 
and  others  of  high  authority,  also  support  this  radical  or  root 
view  that  the  conjugal  relation  is  founded  in  the  nature  of 
man — (the  natural  man) — as  plainly  taught  by  Christ  in 
consecrating  it  as  a  fundamental  law  of  his  kingdom  and 
glorified  in  the  spiritual  nature  of  the  new  man  or  Christian. 

It  is  sufficiently  obvious  that  the  only  true  (and  scriptural) 
conception  of  the  relation  of  the  polygamist  to  all  the 
women  with  whom  he  cohabits,  except  his  true,  and  lawful 
wife,  is  that  of  adultery.  Throughout  the  gentile  world  the 
so-called  plural  wives  are  merely  concubines.  In  heathen 
lands  man's  ignorance  of  the  heinousness  of  the  sin 


107 

against  his  own  soul  and  body,  against  his  neighbor 
and  against  his  God,  may  and  does  lessen  the  number 
of  stripes  deserved,  but  it  does  not  change  its  sinful 
character,  nor  does  God's  forbearance  with  that  sin, 
any  more  than  with  multitudes  of  other  sins,  divest 
it  of  its  sinfulness.  In  Leviticus  (ch.  iv)*  several  sacrifices 
are  designated  for  sins  of  ignorance  by  individuals  and  the 
community.  Why,  the  sin  of  the  crucifixion,  for  which 
Peter  called  on  the  perpetrators  to  repent,  was  a  sin  of  ignor- 
ance. Ignorance  is  no  exemption  from  guilt  though  it  miti- 
gates the  punishment.  "Ignorontia  legis  excusat  neminem — 
Ignorance  of  the  law  excuses  nobody/'  Says  Peter:  "And 
now,  brethren,  I  know  that  in  ignorance  ye  did  it,  as  did  also 
your  rulers"  (Acts  iii:  17).  This  language  was  addressed  to 
those  who  had  been  guilty  of  the  crime  of  the  crucifixion. 

This  principle  of  the  divine  government,  which  mitigates 
but  does  not  ignore  nor  cancel  the  sins  of  ignorance,  is  ap- 
plicable to  Old  Testament  ignorance ;  but  it  is  a  perversion  of 
this  principle  to  plead  it  for  connivance  at  sin  under  New 
Testament  light.  It  does  not  allow  for  a  moment's  continu- 
ance in  known  sin.  So  that  when  the  heathen  come  to  the 
missionary  and  learn  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,  this  ignorance 
cannot  then  for  a  moment  be  pleaded  without  aggravating 
the  guilt.  If  a  heathen  learn  enough  to  accept  Christ  as  a 
Savior  from  sin,  he  has  certainly  learned  enough  to  renounce 
polygamy  as  a  sin  however  ignorant  he  may  have  been  of  it 
previously.  There  can  nowhere  be  found  any  justification 
of  tolerating  polygamy  in  the  Christian  life.  They  are  as  in- 
compatable  as  fire  and  water. 

Acts  xvii :  30  is  a  searchlight  passage  on  this  Old  Testament 
plea  point.  "The  times  of  ignorance,  therefore,  God  over- 


108 

looked:  but  now  He  comrnandeth  men  that  they  shall  all 
everywhere  repent."  Neither  Jew  nor  Gentile  is  exempted. 
But  this  utterance  does  not  stand  alone.  In  Rom.  iii :  25  the 
Apostle  is  careful  to  point  out  that  God  did  not  compromise 
"his  righteousness  because  of  the  passing  over  of  the  sins  done 
aforetime  in  the -forbearance  of  God,"  as  would  be  shown  by 
his  holding  sinners  strictly  to  account  with  no  hope  of  de- 
liverance from  their  sins  except  on  terms  laid  down  by 
Jesus  Christ.  Luke  xvi:  16  we  read:  "The  law  and  the 
prophets  were  until  John:  from  that  time  the  gospel  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God  is  preached,  and  every  man  entereth  vio- 
lently into  it."  In  Heb.  vi:  1-8  the  scripture  recognizes 
progress  of  enlightenment  and  warns  us  that  those  who  do 
not  profit  thereby  are  "rejected  and  nigh  unto  a  curse." 
Heb.  x:  26:  "For  if  we  sin  willfully  after  that  we  have  re- 
ceived the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  there  remaineth  no  more 
sacrifice  for  sins,  but  a  certain  fearful  expectation  of  judg- 
ment." 

With  the  light  we  now  have,  since  "the  gospel  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God  is  preached,"  this  polygamous  practice  tol- 
erated in  the  twilight  of  patriarchal  times  could  not  now  be 
tolerated  for  a  moment.  Continuance  in  it  cannot  even 
plead  mitigation  where  the  missionary  has  dutifully  imparted 
the  instruction  of  the  gospel,  especially  as  it  has  fallen  from 
the  lips  of  Christ  and  the  pens  of  His  apostles. 


109 

CHAPTER  X. 
BIBLE  ARGUMENT. 

PART  2.  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

The  Patriarchs:  This  leads  me  to  notice  finally  from  the 
Bible  the  attempt  of  some  to  weaken  and  qualify  the  rigid 
constitutional  law  of  our  church  against  polygamy  by  an 
appeal  to  old-time  practices  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament. 
The  argument  from  the  New  Testament  is  impregnable. 

The  monogamous  conjugal  relation  is  throughout  v  the 
sacred  scriptures  the  chosen  type  of  Christ's  union  with  his 
church.  The  Jew  recognized  it  as  the  emblem  of  the  relation 
of  the  true  God  to  Israel .  It  pervades  the  history,  the  poetry 
and  the  prophecy  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  is  a  dominating 
conception  of  the  New  Testament.  (See  Eph.  v:  22-33  and 
Rev.  xix:  6-9.)  Our  Lord,  the  afternoon  of  the  day  of  his 
resurrection,  whilst  journeying  to  Eramaus,  a  village  a  few 
miles  distant  from  Jerusalem,  fell  in  with  two  disciples  whose 
minds  were  bewildered  by  the  occurrences  of  the  past  few 
days,  and  to  enable  them  to  see  that  it  was  not  all  a  confused 
and  chance  medley,  but  the  well-ordered  fulfillment  of  their 
sacred  oracles,  we  are  told :  "And  he  said  unto  them,  0  foolish 
men,  and  slow  of  heart  to  believe  in  (after)  all  that  the 
prophets  have  spoken !  Behooved  it  not  the  Christ  to  suffer 
these  things,  and  to  enter  into  his  glory?  And  beginning 
from  Moses  and  from  all  the  prophets,  he  interpreted  to  them 
in  all  the  scriptures  the  things  concerning  himself."  This 
lifting  of  the  veil  by  the  Christ  for  these  simple-minded  way- 
farers not  only  cast  a  searchlight  on  the  work  of  the  atone- 


.i  110 

ment,  but  also  on  his  conjugal  relation  to  his  blood-bought 
church.  Christ  also  is  the  head  of  the  church,  being  himself 
also  the  Savior  of  the  body.  But  as  the  church  is  subject  to 
Christ,  so  let  the  wives  also  be  to  their  husbands  in  every- 
thing. "Husbands,  love  your  wives,  even  as  Christ  also 
loved  the  church,  and  gave  himself  up  for  it ;  that  he  might 
sanctify  it,  having  cleansed  it  by  the  washing  of  water  with 
the  word,  that  he  might  present-  the  church  to  himself  a  glo- 
rious church,  not  having  spot  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing ; 
but  that  it  should  be  holy  and  without  blemish." 

We  thus  learn  that  the  ideal  of  the  Messiah  was  that  of  a 
final  and  triumphant  entrance  into  his  glory,  not  alone,  but 
with  his  redeemed  bride.  "The  king's  daughter  within  the 
palace  is  all  glorious:  her  clothing  is  inwrought  with  gold" 
(Ps.  xlv:  13).  Hence  we  see  that  the  second  Adam  is 
even  more  gloriously  monogamous  that  the  first  Adam. 

Hence,  in  view  of  this  Messianic  anticipation  of  the  glori- 
fication of  monogamy  in  His  conjugal  relation  to  His  re- 
deemed and  spotless  church,  I  am  prepared  to  appreciate  the 
abounding  proof  that  this  fundamental  idea  maintained  its 
unyielding  ascendancy,  notwithstanding  the  sad  lapsings 
through  Satanic  and  lustful  promptings  of  sinful  and  worldly 
ambitious  individual  men,  whose  perverse  disregard  of 
God's  goodness  and  the  flagrant  immoralities  of  some  of 
whose  lives  were  a  sore  trial  and  disgrace  to  Israel. 

In  briefly  canvassing  the  subject  of  polygamy  in  the  Old 
Testament,  I  wish  to  express  at  the  very  outset  my  obliga- 
tions to  Dr.  E.  L.  Dabney  for  the  assistance  rendered  espe- 
cially by  his  Theology  and  his  Practical  Philosophy.  He 
boldly  and  confidently  announces  his  position  thus:  "We 
assert  that  the  whole  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch  and  of  all 


Ill 

the  Old  Testament  is  only  adverse  to  polygamy.  As  some 
Christian  divines  have  taught  otherwise,  we  must  ask  the 
reader's  attention  and  patience  for  a  brief  statement. 
Polygamy  is  recorded  of  Abraham,  Jacob,  Gideon,  Elkanah, 
Saul,  David,  Solomon,  his  son  and  grandson,  and  Joash ;  but 
so  are  other  sins  of  every  one  of  them  except  Elkanah, 
Samuel's  father,  of  whom  we  know  so  little.  And,  as  every 
intelligent  reader  knows,  the  truthful  narrative  of  holy  writ 
as  often  discloses  the  sins  of  good  men  for  our  warning,  as 
their  virtues  for  our  imitation.  And  he  who  notes  how,  in 
every  Bible  instance,  polygamy  appears  as  the  cause  of  do- 
mestis  feuds,  sin,  and  disaster,  will  have  little  doubt  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  holds  up  all  these  cases  for  our  warning,  and  not 
for  our  approval." 

Dr.  Dabney  gives  an  optimistic  interpretation  of  Deuteron- 
omy xxiv:  1:  "What  then  did  Moses  enact?  Let  us  explain 
it."  His  explanation  has  already  been  anticipated  but 
may  be  repeated  more  fully  and  is  substantially  as 
follows:  Females  in  oriental  society  have  always  been 
reared  in  great  seclusion,  the  future  bride  and  groom 
scarcely  seeing  each  other  before  marriage.  The  en- 
gagement is  usually,  as  in  Japan,  through  a  Nakodo — 
a  go-between  or  third  party.  According  to  the  view 
of  this  Mosaic  statute,  the  bride-to-be  was  first  unveiled 
in  the  presence  of  the  prospective  bridegroom;  it  might  be 
his  first  distinct  view  of  her  person.  Now  if  at  this  nuptial 
disclosure  he  discovered  in  her  "some  nakedness" — the 
equivocal  original  word — i.  e.,  something  physically  or  mor- 
ally displeasing,  as  inflamed  sore  eyes,  ugliness  of  person,  vul- 
gar coarseness,  anything  which  was  repulsive  and  changed  his 
feelings  of  pleasing  anticipation  into  disgust  and  repulsion, 


112 

he  was  allowed  to  reject  her  as  not  fulfilling  the  contract. 
But  he  was  to  give  her  a  bill  of  release  or  divorce,  and  she 
was  free  and  at  liberty  to  marry  another,  though  discarded, 
but  not  embraced  by  him.  She  was  still  a  virgin.  It  was 
only  a  divorce  in  name,  and  not  from  a  real  conjugal  co- 
habitation. 

According  to  this  view,  the  bill  of  divorce  was  a  relief  to 
the  unfortunate  girl  and  a  protection  against  the  hard- 
hearted cruelty  or  severity  from  the  dissatisfaction  of  dis- 
appointed parents,  brothers  and  kinsfolk,  as  it  certified  her 
honor  and  chastity  and  right  to  marry  again,  despite  her 
alleged  unloveliness  in  the  eyes  of  this  first  suitor. 

A  directly  opposite  view  of  a  Hebrew  scholar  of  great  note 
is  that  this  bill  was  a  reprieve  from  the  death  penalty  for 
adultery,  having  been  enacted  on  the  same  day  as  that  penal 
statute.  But  the  competence  to  marry  discredits  this  view. 
Intervening  between  these  extremes  are  several  views  which 
need  not  now  be  enumerated.  But  the  thing  to  be  noted 
is  that  in  none  of  them  is  there  a  glimmer  of  simultaneous 
polygamy.  The  Savior  found  that  this  pliable  statute  had 
been  abusively  construed  as  an  unwarrantable  pretext  for 
breaking  up  the  actual  marriage  relation,  and  consequently 
dispensed  with  it  and  its  abuses.  As  abiised  by  the  Pharisees 
it  had  been  rendered  subservient  to  an  unrighteous  consecu- 
tive polygamy,  but  was,  even  as  thus  abused,  utterly  incom- 
patible with  simultaneous  polygamy. 

If  any  have  supposed  that  Moses  favored  simultaneous 
polygamy,  this  exposition  extracts  its  chief  fang. 

The  first  polygamist  was  Lamech,  whose  murderous  con- 
duct in  slaying  several  men,  and  God-defying  temper  and 
boastful  challenge  are  quite  in  harmony  with  his  descent 


113 

from  his  forbear  Cain,  and  conspicuously  exhibit  the  wicked- 
ness of  the  spirit  that  originated  this  wicked  violation  of  the 
chaste  arid  normal  relation  of  wedlock  as  ordained  at  crea- 
tion between  one  man  and  one  woman.  An  eminent  He- 
braist discourses  thus  on  this  passage:  "Cain  begged  for 
death.  Now  therefore  let  be,  that  any  one  that  findeth  me 
may  kill  me."  This  God  denied.  Lamech  was  a  branch  of 
this  root,  and  brought  into  the  world  the  abomination  of 
polygamy,  or  of  having  more  wives  at  once  than  one;  for 
which  God  smiteth  him  with  horror  of  conscience  that  he 
himself  might  be  a  witness  of  that  sin  that  he  had  introduced, 
and  he  curseth  himself  for  a  more  deplorable  and  desperate 
wretch  than  his  ancestor  Cain.  He  acknowledged  his  sin 
70  times  greater  than  that  of  Cain,  his  desert,  of  punish- 
ment corresponding.  For  that  Cain  had  slain  but  one  man. 
and  had  only  destroyed  his  body,  but  he  himself  (Lamech) 
had  destroyed  both  young  and  old  by  his  accursed  example, 
which  was  now  so  corruptly  followed  arid  entertained  in  the 
world,  that  ere  long,  it  was  a  special  forwarder  of  its  destruc- 
tion. He  made  his  plaint  to  the  two  wives  that  had  brought 
him  to  this  state.  In  this  stock  also  began  idolatry.  "Esau 
took  his  wives  of  the  daughters  of  Canaan,"  and  for  this  his 
impious  polygamy  and  for  marrying  Canaanitish  wives,  a 
twofold  offense,  he  is  called  a  fornicator  (Heb.  xii:  16),  "for 
polygamy  is  called  fornication  or  whoredom."  He  gave  one 
of  his  wives  the  name  of  Adah,  the  wife  of  the  first  polyg- 
arnist  in  the  world  (Gen.  xxxvi :  2) .  Let  it  be  noted  that  that 
great  scholar,  Bishop  John  Lightfoot,  frequently  notices  that 
fornication  was  a  current  designation  in  scripture,  Old  Testa- 
ment and  New  Testament,  for  polygamy.  Anyone  who  will 
bear  this  view  of  Lightfoot  (1602-1075)  in  mind  will  find,  as 
s 


114 

he  reads  and  studies,  evidence  in  its  support  clustering  about 
it  more  and  more.  In  the  letter  sent  forth  from  the  Jerusalem 
council  by  Paul  and  Barnabas  that  enjoins  the  Gentile  con- 
verts to  "abstain  from  fornication,"  he  understands  it  as  for- 
biding  polygamy.  This  has  been  noticed  in  the  opening  of 
this  discourse. 

Although  polygamy  muddied  the  antediluvian  waters,  yet 
Noah  and  his  family  emerged  therefrom  wholly  monog- 
amous. Hence  the  world  took  its  second  start,  according  to 
scripture  narrative,  as  it  had  taken  its  first  in  monogamous 
families.  "In  the  selfsame  day  entered  Noah,  and  Shem,  and 
Ham,  and  Japheth,  the  sons  of  Noah,  and  Noah's  wife,  and 
the  three  wives  of  his  sons  with  them  into  the  Ark"  (Gen. 
vii:  13). 

We  hear  no  more  of  polygamy  till  the  perverse  am- 
bition of  Sarah,  a  schemer  to  have  in  some  way  a 
maternal  relation  to  the  promised  seed,  led  Abraham 
to  hearken  unto  her  scheme  to  obtain  children  by  her  hand- 
maid Hagar.  Jacob  was  tricked  into  it  by  a  base  deception. 
When,  in  the  days  of  Samuel,  in  a  spirit  of  rebellion  against 
Jehovah  the  people  insisted  on  having  the  showy  form  and 
trappings  of  a  heathen  monarchy  in  place  of  the  simple  rule 
of  Jehovah,  the  harem  came  with  it.  It  passed  over  by  suc- 
cession, like  a  transplanted  tree,  to  the  gardens  of  David  and 
Solomon  and  bore  on  its  bending  branches  and  limbs  the 
apples  of  Sodom,  fair  without,  but  filled  within  with  ashes 
and  bitterness. 

The  transfer  of  Saul's  Harem  to  David's  bosom  must  not 
be  misunderstood  as  endorsing  the  harem  as  a  blessing.  In 
oriental  usage,  it  was  simply  the  final  act  of  obliterating  a 
former  and  adverse  dynasty  or  family  reign,  to  wipe  out  its 
harem. 


115 

However,  when  David  is  spoken  of  as  a  man  after  God's 
own  heart,  it  must  be  understood  of  his  official  loyalty  and 
not  of  his  personal  character  as  sinless.  It  is  not  unusual  to 
find  very  wicked  men  personally  distinguished  officially  for 
public  patriotism  and  official  fidelity. 

Under  the  broad  Declaration,  that  not  only  is  the  Mosaic 
legislation,  but  the  whole  Old  Testament  adverse  to  polyg- 
amy, attention  is  directed  by  Dr.  R.  L.  Dabney  and  others 
particularly  to  three  passages: 

(1)  The  first  is  Leviticus  xviii:  18,  which  is  sometimes 
misunderstood  as  teaching  that  a  man  may  take  another  wife 
provided  she  is  not  a  sister,  or  the  daughter  of  the  same 
parents  as  his  first  wife,  whereas  the  proper  understanding  is 
conceived  to  be  that  no  female,  no  woman  shall  be  thus  as- 
sociated with  his  wife.     Like  language  occurs  in  some  40 
places  and  it  has  been  noted  that  it  is  generic  and  not  specific, 
and  nowhere  else  means  a  daughter  of  the  same  parents. 
In  no  case  does  this  language  mean  blood-relation  unless  it 
does  here.    Thus  understood  it  distinctly  and  explicitly  en- 
joins monogamy  and  forbids  polygamy — forbids  the  taking 
of  another  woman  as  a  rival  wife. 

(2)  Again:     In  Deuteronomy  xvii:  17,  the  anticipated 
King  is  forbidden  to  multiply  wives.    A  critical  inquiry  also 
finds  in  this  scripture  a  prohibition  of  having  more  than  one 
wife.    The  form  of  expression  is  not  the  same  as  increasing 
the  number  of  horses.    Luckock  says  in  Marriage  Relations, 
p.  15:  "A  comparison  of  the  two  restrictions  (as  to  horses 
and    wives)    rather   points    in    the    latter — to    one    (wife) 
only."      If    forbidden    to    the    monarch,  then,  of    course, 
to  the   subjects.     But  is  it   not  incredible  that  so   loyal 
a  ruler  as  David  would  have  lived  in  violation  of  such  plain 


116 

statutes?  Not  at  all.  For  he  did  violence  to  other  known  and 
equally  plain  statutes:  and  at  best,  he  was  a  wretched  and 
great  sinner,  like  Jacob  and  Saul,  but  saved  by  grace. 

(3)  The  third  passage  is  in  the  prophet  Malachi,  ch.  ii: 
13-16.  In  this  case  the  prophet,  like  our  Savior  in  Matt, 
xix  and  Mark  x,  goes  back  to  creation1  and  draws  his  argu- 
ment from  the  fact  that  only  one  man  and  one  woman  were 
created.  "Have  we  not  all  one  Father?  Hath  not  God 
created  us?  *  *  *  And  did  he  not  make  one?  Al- 
though he  had  the  residue  of  the  Spirit.  And  wherefore 
one?  He  sought  a  godly  seed."  God  could  have  created 
for  man  a  score  of  wives,  but  no,  the  companionship  and 
moral  ends  .of  the  conjugal  relation  were  best  and  only  sub- 
served by  one. 

Undoubtedly,  therefore,  we  have  in  both  the  Old  and  the 
New  Testaments  "a  thus  saith  the  Lord"  for  monogamy. 
Where  is  there  an  equivalent  thus  saith  the  Lord  for 
polygamy  by  any  body  or  under  any  circumstances? 

There  is  a  universal  principle  of  logic  which  is  applicable 
to  the  case  before  us.  Monogamy  and  polygamy  are  contra- 
dictories ;  if  one  is  true,  the  other  is  false,  and  if  one  is  false 
the  other  is  true.  The  conjugal  relation  is  ordained  between 
one  man  and  one  woman  or  more  than  one.  To  prove  from 
the  Bible  that  monogamy  is  the  ordinance  or  law  of  God,  is 
a  thus  saith  the  Lord  in  condemnation  of  polygamy. 

It  is  contrary  to  God's  law,  and  it  is  contrary  to  the  word 
of  God.  Polygamy  is  a  sin.  It  is  a  sin  in  its  inception  :  it  is 
always  and  everywhere  a  sin.  It  is  a  sin  among  the  heathen, 
though  it  may  be  a  sin  of  ignorance.  Still  it  is  a  sin,  and 
it  is  in  gospel  light  seen  to  be  a  heinous  sin.  In  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  even  the  spirit  of  polygamy  is  condemned  as 
a  sin. 


117 

I  notice  the  only  two  passages  of  scripture  which  I  find 
quoted  in  support  of  the  position  that  the  polygamous  rela- 
tion is  recognized  as  a  relation  giving  rise  to  reciprocal 
duties.  These  are  the  main  support ;  and  if  this  be  so,  then 
the  foregoing  superstructure  is  overthrown,  for  it  is  an  axiom 
not  to  be  questioned,  that  moral  or  religious  duties  or  obliga- 
tions are  always  in  their  nature  consistent  and  cannot  arise 
out  of  a  wicked  and  sinful  relation.  All  our  duties  spring 
out  of  our  relations  as  human  beings  and  moral  agents.  The 
only  duty  touching  a  wicked  or  sinful  relation  is  to  abandon 
it — to  break  it  off.  "Break  off  thy  sins  by  righteousness." 
If  not,  then  "Why  not?  as  some  say  and  we  are  slanderously 
reported.  Let  us  do  evil,  that  good  may  come,  whose  con- 
demnation is  just."  The  scriptural  test  as  to  the  relation  of 
master  and  bond  servant  being  sinful  or  not,  is  found  in  the 
fact  that  the  reciprocal  duties  of  the  master  and  of  the  bond 
servant  are  set  forth  as  springing  out  of  this  relation.  Eph. 
vi:  5-9:  "Bond  servants,  be  obedient  unto  them  that,  accord- 
ing to  the  flesh,  are  your  masters,"  (Titus  2:  9-10;  Col. 
3:  18).  Where  is  there  any  such  language,  or  thus  saith 
the  Lord,  regarding  the  concubines  and  mistresses. of  polyg- 
amy? If  monogamy  is  the  law  of  God,  then  such  an  in- 
junction or  deduction  of  duty  would  be  a  palpable  self-con- 
tradiction. The  relation  of  husband  and  wife  is  a  prolific 
source  of  inculcated  duties.  But  never  the  concubinous 
relation  in  Old  or  New  Testament.  A  clean  duty  cannot  be 
deduced  rior  gotten  out  of  an  unclean  relation.  There  may 
be  a  clean  duty  to  abrogate,  but  not  for  continuance  in  it 
or  for  its  maintenance.  This  is  a  broad  assertion  to  which 
there  is  no  exception  unless  in  these  two  passages  to  which 
appeal  is  made: — 


118 

(1)  The  first  of  the  two  passages  to  which  some  have 
made  appeal  to  support  the  claim  that  polygamy  is  a  per- 
mitted relation  of  springing  reciprocal  duties,  and  tolerable, 
is  Exodus  xxi :  7-12,  especially  verses  9  and  10.     It  is  assumed 
that  the  man  has  two  wives,  and  that  he  is  forbidden  to  de- 
prive the  less  favored  wife  of  her  conjugal  rights  and  main- 
tenance.    Now,  a  very  little  attention  will  discover  plainly 
that  the  man  is  probably  a  widower  with  grown  sons ;  that 
the  girl  bought  for  a  wife,  not  pleasing  him,  he  does  not 
marry  her,  but  he  is  not  to  sell  her,  and  may  marry  her  to  his 
son;  or,  in  default  of  that,  she  shall  receive  a  wifely  mainte- 
nance or  go  away  free,  without  his  getting  back  any  price  for 
her.     On  the  supposition  that  the  father  has  married  her, 
either  as  a  sole  or  second  wife,  the  son  then  marrying  her,  it 
would  be  a  plain  case  of  authorizing  just  such  a  case  of  in- 
cest as  that  at  Corinth — a  man  marrying  his  stepmother  (I 
Cor.  v).     Hence  this  polygamous  supposition  is  not  allow- 
able.   This  is  not  a  case  of  polygamy  at  all.    This  exposition, 
unelaborated,  is  too  plain  to  admit  of  or  call  for  discussion. 
The  first  prop  of  the  polygamous  theory  appealed  to  thus 
falls  away. 

(2)  The  second  and  the  only  other  case  appealed  to  in 
support  of  relative  or  reciprocal  duties  being  recognized  as 
springing  out  of  polygamous  relations  is  Deuteronomy  xxi: 
15-17.     But  this  is  a  case  of  primogeniture,  involving  the 
relation  of  a  father  to  his  first-born  son  and  the  consequent 
duty  toward  that  son.     There  is  not  a  suggestion  nor  intima- 
tion of  any  duty  to  either  wife  arising  from  his  relation  to 
her.     The  duty  is  wholly  to  the  son,  whose  right  as  first-born 
must  be  honored  regardless  of  his  personal  preference  for  the 
women.     The  reciprocity  involving  the  rights  and  duties  of 


119 

the  case  is  between  the  father  and  the  son  alone.  The  fact 
of  the  bigamy  is  recognized,  but  no  duty  to  either  woman, 
but  only  to  the  son. 

It  is  not  a  little  surprising  that  Dr.  Dabney  (Theology, 
412),  after  handling  the  subject  of  polygamy  in  the  Old 
Testament  with  a  master's  hand,  and  that,  too,  avowedly  in 
support  of  the  radical  and  valid  position  that  "the  whole 
legislation  of  the  Pentateuch  and  of  all  the  Old  Testament  is 
only  adverse  to  polygamy,"  should  yet  dispose  of  these  cases 
thus:  "Both  these  cases  are  explained  by  the  admitted  prin- 
ciple that  there  may  be  relations  which  it  was  sin  to  form, 
and  which  yet  it  is  sinful  to  break  when  formed/'  But  in 
neither  of  these  cases  is  there  any  conjugal  right  or  obliga- 
tion recognized.  I  submit  that  the  principle  invoked  does 
not  apply  to  either  of  these  cases.  It  may  be  a  sin  for  a  man 
to  beget  an  illegitimate  child;  but  his  relation  to  that  child 
'cannot  be  broken.  It  is  his  duty  to  care  for  that  child. 
Even  human  law  so  provides.  To  ignore  or  abandon 
it  is  wicked.  But  the  polygamous  relation  can  be  ter- 
minated, and  the  co-participants  may  not  only  set  it  aside 
without  sin,  but  the  continuance  of  the  relation  is  sin,  being 
voluntary  and  not  irrevocable.  It  is  all  wrong.  It  imposes 
the  imperative  duty  of  voluntary  abandonment.  And  from 
the  nature  of  the  case  it  never  can  be  a  sin  to  abandon  sin 
nor  wrong  to  do  right. 

There  is  a  double  error  here.  The  polygamous  relation  is 
by  mistake  assumed  to  exist  as  the  hinge  of  action  in  each 
of  these  two  cases ;  but  it  is,  as  I  have  shown,  not  the  hinge  of 
action  in  either  case.  This  is  a  lamentable  error,  and  he  pro- 
jects it  forward  into  the  sphere  of  the  New  Testament,  which 
would  reverse  things  by  loosening  the  bands  of  duty  under 


120 

increased  light.  He  continues:  "No  one  doubts  whether  the 
New  Testament  makes  polygamy  unlawful;  yet  it  seems 
probable  that  the  Apostles  gave  the  same  instructions  to  the 
husbands  of  a  plurality  of  wives  entering  the  Christian 
church.  There  appears,  then,  no  evidence  that  polygamy 
was  allowed  in  the  laws  of  Moses." 

This  is  a  manifest  error,  for  his  explanation  of  the  two 
cases  concedes  them  to  be  polygamous,  which  is  a  palpable 
mistake.  Moreover,  the  principle  to  which  appeal  is  made 
does  not  and  cannot  apply  to  sinful  relations.  Horace  says, 
Homer  sometimes  nods.  But  I  confess  that  I  see  no  ade- 
quate reason  for  the  apologists  of  polygamy  in  the  Christian 
church  attempting  to  rally  around  Dr.  Dabney  as  their 
leader,  for  no  one  has  more  effectually  destroyed  their  plau- 
sible reliance  on  mistaken  supports  supposed  to  be  found  in 
the  Old  Testament. 

The  current  impression  and  popular  representation  that 
the  ancient  history  of  the  Jewish  people  and  that  the  Old 
Testament  scriptures  not  only  record  the  fact  that  a  certain 
amount  of  polygamy  did  crop  out  in  the  course  of  its  ages, 
but  did  in  some  sort  furnish  a  warrant  for  it  as  having  the 
divine  approval,  as  an  institution  of  the  Israelitish  nation, — 
this  impression  and  this  representation  are  empty  bubbles 
that  should  be  punctured.  In  all  the  ages  the  Jewish  people 
were  a  monogamous  people,  and  the  departures  from  this 
were  individual  and  exceptional,  and  provocative  providen- 
tially of  the  divine  displeasure.  It  is  unfortunate  that  the 
sinners  were  so  conspicuous.  However,  the  lives  of  some  of 
the  best  of  the  ancient  Bible  worthies  were  not  stained  by 
this  sin,  such  as  Adam  and  his  descendants  in  the  line  of 
Seth,  and  Noah  and  his  sons,  and  Isaac,  and  Aaron,  and 


121 

Moses,  and  Samuel  and  others.  Even  all  the  successors  of 
Solomon  from  his  great-grandson  Asa  down  to  Josiah,  ex- 
cept Joash,  were  never  blurred  nor  blighted  by  this  sin. 

I  will  quote  an  interesting  and  instructive  passage  from 
the  Jewish  Encyclopedia,  vol.  x,  p.  120.  This  is  a  recent 
work.  It  says:  "Of  all  the  Eabbis  named  in  the  Talmud, 
there  is  not  one  who  is  mentioned  as  having  lived  in  polyg- 
amy" (P.  121a).  Again:  "There  is  no  Rabbinical  evidence 
that  any  of  the  prophets  lived  in  polygamy.  Monogamous 
marriage  was  used  by  them  as  the  symbol  of  the  union  of 
God  with  Israel,  while  polygamy  was  compared  to  polytheism 
or  idolatrous  worship"  [which  was  tr*eason  and  punish- 
able with  death]  (Hosea  ii:  18;  Isa.  1:1;  Jer.  ii:  2;  Ezek. 
x:  18). 

I  will  quote  again  from  the  same  source,  to  show  that  the 
general  sentiment  in  Israel  against  polygamy  is  illus- 
trated by  an  Aramaic  Targum  paraphrase  of  Ruth  iv:  16. 
It  runs  thus:  "The  kinsman  being  requested  by  Boaz  to 
marry  Ruth,  he  said :  'I  cannot  redeem  her;  for  I  have  a  wife, 
and  have  no  right  to  take  another  in  addition  to  her,  lest  she 
be  a  disturbance  in  my  house  and  destroy  my  peace.  Redeem 
thou ;  for  thou  hast  no  wife.7  Rabbi  Isaac  corroborates  this, 
for  he  affirms  that  Boaz'  wife  died  the  day  that  Ruth  entered 
Palestine." 

However,  even  the  exceptional  and  limited  extent  to  which 
polygamy  cropped  out  in  the  later  ages  of  Israel  gave  rise  to 
many  Rabbinical  discussions.  An  express  decree  of  pro- 
hibition was  pronounced  against  polygamy  by  Rabbi  Ger- 
shom,  b.  Judah,  the  light  of  the  exile  (906-1028,  A.  D.), 
which  was  soon  accepted  generally.  Even  in  the  Orient 
monogamy  soon  became  the  rule  and  polygamy  the  excep- 


122 

tion,  for  only  the  wealthy  could  afford  it.  But  the  Reform 
Rabbis,  1889,  met  in  Philadelphia,  U.  S.  A.,  decided*  that  "the 
marriage  of  a  married  man  to  a  second  woman  can  never  take 
place,  nor  claim  religious  validity,  just  as  little  as  if  a  mar- 
ried woman  (should  be  married)  to  another  man,  but  like 
this  is  null  and  void  from  the  beginning."  Vol.  x,  1226. 

WOULD  THE  JEWS  ADMIT  A  POLYGAMOUS  PROSELYTE? 

The  history  of  this  people  shows  with  what  obstinate  tenac- 
ity an  exceptional  few  have  clung  to  this  ancient  and  unau- 
thorized departure  from  the  law  of  God.  But  I  am  not  aware 
that  any  organized  authority  of  this  people,  either  in  ancient 
or  modern  times,  ever  made  a  deliverance  in  favor 'of  polyg- 
amy as  a  national  practice,  or  of  a  polygamous  proselyte 
being  admitted  to  the  communion  of  the  Jewish  people.  It 
was  an  individual  matter  without  God's  authority  and  with- 
out his  blessing.  Like  other  sins,  it  thrust  itself  into  the  in- 
dividual life  of  a  few  rich  and  some  very  conspicuous  people. 

As  idolatry  was  extirpated  from  the  Jewish  people  by  the 
Babylonish  exile,  and  never  makes  its  appearance  thereafter, 
so  its  wicked  congener,  polygamy,  should  naturally  disap- 
pear with  it.  In  the  new  Testament  there  is  not  a  re- 
corded instance  of  nor  allusion  to  it  among  the  Jews. 
Herod  the  Great  had  ten  wives,  and  several  at  the 
same  time,  but  he  was  not  a  Jew;  and  notwitstand- 
ing  his  decided  ability  and  magnificence  and  public 
display,  such  was  his  gross  immorality  and  savage 
cruelty  that  his  example  repelled  rather  than  attracted  imi- 
tation. When  Herod's  son,  Herod  Antipas,  married  He- 
rodias,  out  of  deference  to  the  prevalent  monogamous  senti- 
ment of  the  public,  she  made  it  a  condition  that  he  divorce 


123 

his  wife,  the  daughter  of  Aretas,  King  of  Arabia;  and  when 
Herod's  sister,  Salome,  quarreled  with  her  husband,  Costo- 
barus,  she  sent  him  a  bill  of  divorce  before  she  married 
Pharoras.  The  bill  of  divorce  did  not  subserve  simultaneous 
polygamy,  which  is  polygamy  in  the  ordinary  popular  sense, 
but  it  was  an  efficient  and  wicked  instrument  of  successive  or 
consecutive  polygamy,  or  the  divorcing  and  marrying  of  one 
woman  after  another  on  the  most  capricious  pretexts.  This 
was  the  practice  which  the  Hillel  school  favored,  and  which 
the  Savior  sharply  rebuked  and  displaced  by  assigning  a 
cause  so  grave  as  to  destroy  the  marriage  bond.  And  the 
right  of  divorce  which  had  been  monopolized  by  man,  he 
recognized  as  equally  the  right  of  the  wife,  and  on  the  same 
ground.  This  was  startling.  Hence  the  growl  in  that  case, 
that  it  was  better  not  to  marry  at  all. 

I  will  repeat,  what  it  is  important  to  bear  in  mind : 
In  view  of  the  monogamous  practice  and  sentiment  among 
the  Jews,  it  is  quite  improbable  that  the  admission  of  Jewish 
converts  to  the  company  of  Christians  would  give  rise  to  the 
question  of  admitting  polygamists.  The  set  traditional  na- 
tional sentiment  against  it,  enlightened  and  intensified  by 
the  explicit  monogamous  teachings  of  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles, would  serve  to  inevitably  set  them  on  edge  to  sharply 
dissent  from  the  acceptance  of  polygamous  heathen. 

It  may  be  a  surprise  to  some  to  be  told  that  the  social  condi- 
tion of  the  great  mass  of  the  Gentiles,  whence  Christianity 
obtained  its  first  converts,  also  contributes  to  lessen  the  likeli- 
hood that  polygamy — simultaneous  so-called  polygamy — 
was  admitted  into  the  apostolic  church.  Such,  however,  is 
the  actual  state  of  facts,  which  claims  more  attention  than  it 
has  received. 


124 

Legally  the  Greeks  and  Romans  were  monogamous  na- 
tions. It  is  but  voicing  the  best  authorities  to  repeat  that  both 
Grecian  and  Roman  law  and  lawful  usage  were  monoga- 
mous— as  really  so  as  in  Israel ;  but  in  like  manner  as  among 
the  Israelites  lust  and  willfullness  wandered,  and,  to  a  greater 
extent,  into  vulgar  concubinous  polygamy.  Says  Gibbon: 
"The  inclination  of  the  Roman  husband  discharged  or  with- 
held the  conjugal  debt  so  scrupulously  exacted  by  Athenian 
and  Jewish  laws;  but  as  polygamy  was  unknown  he  could 
never  admit  to  his  bed  a  fairer  or  more  favored  partner" 
(Milman's  Gibbon,  vol.  iii,  687).  This  at  once  lifts  from 
these  people  historically  the  charge  of  polygamy.  It  was  the 
sharp  and  proud  distinction  between  citizen  and  alien  that 
enforced  monogamy  among  both  these  peoples,  as  citizenship 
was  the  inheritance  only  of  the  children  of  the  true  or  legal 
wife.  The  son  of  Pericles  by  the  Milesian  Aspasia  could  only 
become  a  citizen  by  vote  of  the  people.  Whilst  in  Homer  a 
true  monogamy  is  the  rule,  and  is  assumed  to  be  the  natural 
condition,  yet  with  the  "wedded  wife"  concubines  are  men- 
tioned. Whilst  Priam's  court  bore  much  resemblance  to  that 
of  a  polygamous  monarch,  yet  Hecuba  alone  bore  the  title  of 
wife  (Iliad  ix:  340-343,  notes  86).  Plato  excluded  poetry 
from  his  republic,  but  sanctioned  promiscuity ;  this,  however, 
was  an  Utopian  dream,  and  did  not  pretend  to  be  either  his- 
toric or  practicable. 

The  plain  prose  of  the  historic  condition  of  both  nations 
is  set  forth  in  the  following  quotation  from  a  speech  credited 
to  Demosthenes:  "We  have  female  (hetairai)  companions 
for  our  pleasure,  concubines  for  daily  attendance  on  our  per- 
sons, and  wives  in  order  that  we  may  beget  [legitimate] 
children,  and  that  we  may  have  faithful  guardians  of  our 


125 

households."  Here  we  have  a  certain  sentimental  duty  to 
the  state,  and  an  unrestrained  loyalty  to  lust.  Yet  the  po- 
sition of  the  lawful  and  true  wife  is  pre-eminent  in  the 
family. 

Thus  we  see  that  polygamy  among  these  great  peoples  was 
not,  judged  by  their  own  standards,  the  ideal  and  lawful 
condition  of  society.  It  was  a  beclouded  state,  and  had  to 
be  apologized  for.  Even  the  hetairai,  Becker  tells  us  in 
Charicles,  were  anot  respectable."  This  distinction  between 
true  wives  and  lawless  concubines,  or  private  mistresses, 
could  not  and  did  not  escape  attention  in  the  very  first  prop- 
agation of  Christianity  in  speaking  of  the  relations  of  the 
sexes. 

A  distinguishing  mark  of  polygamy  the  world  over,  and 
from  ancient  down  to  the  present  time,  is  that  it  is  an  inci- 
dent of  riches.  Wherever  it  has  prevailed,  or  where  it  now 
prevails,  it  is,  as  a  rule,  only  the  relatively  rich  that  practice 
it,  and  by  no  means  even  all  of  them.  Now,  the  early  con- 
verts to  Christianity  were  almost  exclusively  from  among  the 
poor.  As  among  the  evidences  of  his  Messiahship,  the 
Savior  sent  back  word  to  John,  in  prison,  by  the  messengers, 
that  he  was  preaching  the  gospel  to  the  poor  (Matt,  xi :  5) . 
There  were  plenty  of  rich  people  in  Palestine  in  the  Saviour's 
time,  but  though  polygamy  did  not  disgrace  them,  he  made 
it  a  point  to  publish  the  good  news  to  the  poor,  who  were 
exempt  from  this  burden  in  the  way  of  accepting  Christ. 
The  disciples,  in  following  his  example  in  their  mission  work, 
where  polygamy  was  found,  were  brought  into  almost  ex- 
clusive intercourse  with  the  poor  monogamists.  The  con- 
verts to  the  gospel  were  from  among  the  poor.  James,  the 
half-brother  of  our  Lord  and  the  first  pastor  of  the  church 
at  Jerusalem,  addressed  a  letter  especially  to  the  dispersed  of 


126 

the  twelve  tribes  to  remove  or  prevent  prejudice  against  the 
gospel  because  its  success  was  in  a  marked  degree  among  the 
poor,  in  which  we  find  this  stirring  exhortation:  "Hearken, 
my  beloved  brethren :  did  not  God  choose  them  that  are  poor 
as  to  the  world  to  be  rich  in  faith,  and  heirs  of  the  kingdom 
which  he  promised  to  them  that  love  him ;  but  ye  have  dis- 
honored the  poor  man.  *  *  *  But  if  ye  have  respect  of 
persons,  ye  commit  sin7'  (James,  ch.  ii:  5).  And  in  address- 
ing the  Corinthians  Paul  reminds  them  of  their  humble  con- 
dition before  conversion.  His  own  habits  of  life  as  a  poor 
mechanic,  earning  his  daily  living  by  making  military  tents, 
brought  him  naturally  in  association  with  that  class  of  people. 
Earning  his  bread  by  the  sweat  of  his  brow  was  his  habit 
and  his  choice. 

Now,  it  seems  fair  to  infer  that,  as  the  publishers  of  the 
gospel  were  restrained  from  courting  or  expecting  the  favor 
of  the  rich  and  powerful,  among  whom  alone  polygamy,  and 
that  in  limited  measure,  was  found,  and  had  their  attention 
directed  to  the  poor  and  destitute,  who  were  monogamists, 
from  amongst  whom  their  converts  were  chiefly  won,  this 
state  of  facts  lessens  the  likelihood  of  polygamists  entering  the 
church,  or  even  raising  therein  a  question,  especially  when 
the  godly  life  of  the  Christian  was  held  up  before  them,  and 
would  render  such  entrance  altogether  improbable  unless 
the  sinful  life  of  polygamy  was  renounced  before  admission. 
The  presumption  is  that  those  who  gathered  at  Jerusalem  at 
Pentecost  were  monogamists  and  not  polytheists.  If  a 
polygamist  had  been  swept  in  with  the  crowd,  his 
berth  would  have  been  too  hot  for  him.  There  is  a 
total  absence  of  any  positive  or  probable  evidence 
that  polygamists  were  baptized  on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 
That  sensible  persons  should  gulp  as  conclusive  such  a 


flimsy  conjecture  is  incredible.  The  least  that  could  be  said 
or  thought  of  Pentecost  was  that  it  was  a  monotheistic  feast ; 
and  monotheism  did  not  well  agree  with  idolatry  or  polyg- 
amy, especially  since  the  exile.* 

CHAPTER  XI. 

VON  DOBSCHUTS  AND  BlNGHAM. 

It  is  now  proposed  to  strengthen  this  presumption  against 
polygamy  in  the  Apostolic  church  by  means  of  confirmatory 
evidence  which  some  faithful  and  diligent  investigation 
into  the  primative  life  of  the  church  has  placed  within  our 
reach. 

I  shall  first  quote,  with  some  fullness,  from  an  elaborate 
and  quite  recent  work  by  Ernst  Von  Dobschuts,  D.  D.,  Pro- 
fessor of  New  Testament  Theology  in  the  University  of 
Strasburg,  entitled  "The  Christian  Life  in  the  Primitive 
Church."  The  particular  treatise  around  which  his  labors 
are  made  to  cluster  is  the  Pastor  or  Shepherd  of  Hennas. 
The  date  of  this  well-known  practical  treatise,  which  one  can 
easily  read  in  a  few  hours,  is  early  in  the  second  century, 
A.  D.,  set  down  by  Adam  Clark  at  100,  and  certainly 
prior  to  140.  It  is  earlier  than  Justin's  First  Apology,  and 
probably  near  the  time  that  Aristides  made  his  address  in  de- 
fense of  Christianity  to  Hadrian,  on  the  occasion  of  the  Em- 
peror's visit  to  Athens,  126  A.  D.  (This  Apology  has,  fortu- 
nately, heen  recovered  recently.)  Some  even  suppose  this 
Hermas  is  the  same  as  the  Hernias  named  by  Paul  in  his 
salutation  to  the  Christians  at  Rome  (ch.  xvi:  14),  and  if 

*  18S8.  Conf.,  ii,  p.  74.  The  presumption  is  against  any  polygamists 
being  baptized  at  Pentecost.  The  occasion  of  appointing  deacons  was 
the  narrow  circumstances  of  these  converts. 


128 

not,  then  the  brother  of  Pius,  bishop  or  pastor  of  Rome, 
130-140  A.  D.  It  is  the  first  work  extant  whose  main  effort  is 
to  direct  the  soul  to  God.  It  is  the  Pilgrim's  Progress  of  the 
early  church  in  visions,  commands,  and  similitudes.  It 
dwells  on  the  morality  implied  in  conversion. 

Now  it  is  proposed  to  adduce  evidence  from  this  early 
source,  that  such  was  the  moral  standard  of  admission  to  and 
in  the  Christian  church  that  the  sin  of  polygamy  could  not 
have  gained  entrance  and  standing  therein. 

I  will  substantially  quote  Hernias  and  Dobschuts.  In  the 
course  of  erecting  the  building,  seen  in  vision,  which  sym- 
bolizes the  church,  Hennas  sees  stones,  thrown  away  from 
the  tower,  lying  near  the  water,  without,  however,  being  able 
to  roll  into  it  and  thereby  reach  the  tower.  Wilt  thou  know 
what  they  are?  The  answer  is:  These  are  they  who  have 
received  the  word  and  would  have  themselves  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord ;  but  when  they  become  aware  of  the  holi- 
ness, the  purity  of  the  truth,  they  alter  their  intention  and 
follow  their  evil  lusts  again  (v,  iii,  vii,  3).  Here  Catechu- 
mens are  meant.  They  have  been  Attracted  by  the  preach- 
ing of  the  gospel;  they  have  formed  the  desire  to  be  Chris- 
tians, to  join  the  community  where  such  a  message  of  com- 
fort, such  magnificent  promises  are  proclaimed;  they  have 
already  notified  themselves  for  baptism.  Now  they  are  given 
instruction,  and  herein  it  is  made  clear  to  them  what  the 
truth,  what  Christianity,  calls  for.  It  is  something  holy;  it 
calls  for  a  great  renunciation,  the  complete  rupture  with  their 
whole  former  life.  Not  only  must  they  avoid  certain  coarse 
sins,  like  theft,  fornication  (polygamy),  adultery,  murder, 
and  others;  not  only  must  they  take  upon  themselves  all 
sorts  of  brotherly  duties  like  visiting  the  sick,  hospitality  and 


129 

so  forth,  but  they  are  also  enjoined  to  alter  their  whole  trend 
of  thought  and  to  renounce  everything  that  up  to  now  has 
made  life  desirable  to  them.  This  requirement  is  too  severe. 
So  they  turn  aside  and  fall  back  again  into  their  earlier  life. 

There  is  hardly  one  clearer  proof  of  the  energy  with  which 
the  Christian  church  had  struggled  after  the  realization  of 
its  spiritual  ideal  than  this  witness  of  those  who  drew  back. 
It  is  too  hard  for  us.  Would  they  have  acted  thus  if  they  had 
seen  that  the  requirements,  as  set  forth  in  the  Cathechism, 
were  not  intended  so  seriously?  Would  the  strong  impulse 
towards  propagandism  among  many  so  nearly  won,  have 
been  renounced,  if  the  slightest  yielding  in  this  thing  could 
have  made  it  possible  to  keep  them?  Of  theoretical  hesita- 
tion and  dogmatic  scruples,  not  a  word  is  here  said.  It  was 
the  unconditional  maintenance  of  the  moral  ideal  in  its 
entire  holiness  which  worked  terror  amid  the  undecided 
Catechumens.  Their  withdrawal  and  the  fact  that  no  at- 
tempt was  made  to  prevent  it,  show  at  once  how  seriously  this 
matter  was  taken  in  this  Christian  church  of  that  primitive 
time. 

He  then  proceeds  to  speak  of  the  various  moral  provinces 
wherein  the  Christian  life  is  thus  interpreted,  such  as  mar- 
riage, divorce,  the  position  of  woman,  the  discipline  of  chil- 
dren, slaves,  &c. 

"He  first  treats  of  marriage.  Its  holiness  was  one  of  the 
foremost  moral  principles  of  primitive  Christianity.  It  i& 
credited  with  having  first  awakened  the  feeling  that  not  only 
adultery,  but  sexual  intercourse  outside  of  marriage,  forni- 
cation, is  sin.  It  is  remarkable  how  seldom  this  is  mentioned 
in  Hermas,  perhaps  due  to  the  absence  of  polygamy  from  the 
church.  *  *  *  But  Hermas  quietly  classes  all  heathen  - 

9 


130 

ism  as  adultery.  \Ve  must  note  that  Hernias,  in  sharp  op- 
position to  hypersescetic  tendencies,  commends  the  continual 
and  loving  thinking  of  one's  own  wife  as  the  best  means  of 
protection  against  such  seducing  thoughts.  (This  supports 
I  Tim.  iii:  2,  my  fifth  view,  p.  86.) 

Can  we  think  it  possible  that  the  loose  relation  of  the  sexes 
in  heathenism  which  led  a  Christian  writer  to  speak  of  it  as 
fornication  and  adultery  was  exempted  from  renunciation 
on  the  part  of  Catechumens  before  baptism? 

"A  complete  rupture  with  the  sinful  heathen  pact  was  de- 
manded of  new  members."  It  was  not  the  heathen,  but  the 
Christian  standard  of  sin  that  governed  this  renunciation, 
and  it  was  embodied  in  the  Catechumen al  catechism  to 
which  Von  Dobschuts  refers. 

"This  is  no  imaginary  picture.  Every  single  fact,  he  as- 
sures us,  has  been  supported  by  documentary  evidence.  The 
apologists  were  thoroughly  entitled  to  represent  morality  in 
the  Christian  churches  as  Aristides  has  done.  Heathen,  like 
Pliny,  Lucian  and  Celsus,  were  compelled,  even  against  their 
wills,  to  witness  to  the  correctness  of  the  picture." 
(Von  Dobshuts,  Sexual  Relations:  pp.  349  and  43.) 

"Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery."  This  command  ordi- 
narily restricted  to  marriage,  had  already  received  a  wider 
application  in  the  later  Jewish  literature  through  the  prohi- 
bition of  fornication  or  sexual  relations  outside  of  the  mar- 
riage bond.  This  is  polygamy. 

We  are  accustomed,  or  ought  to  be,  to  look  upon  adultery 
and  fornication  as  equally  sinful.  The  Grecian  world  of  that 
time  had  quite  another  view.  The  respectable  wife  of  a 
citizen  was  brought  up  in  strict  seclusion,  shut  up  in  her 
special  apartment,  almost  like  an  oriental,  and  in  her  case 
adultery  hardly  ever  occurred  on  the  part  of  the  true  wife. 


131 

To  the  husband  chiefly  and  almost  exclusively  belonged 
the  disgraceful  distinction  of  abusing  this  sacred  relation, 
till  in  the  then  more  recent  days  of  degeneracy,  wives  rivalled 
their  immoral  husbands  in  evil  practices  and  individual 
divorcements,  so  that  certain  women  computed  the  passing 
times  not  by  the  succession  of  consuls,  but  of  different  hus- 
bands, to  quote  a  current  saying. 

In  checking  up  the  whole  matter  of  divorce,  as  we  have 
seen,  Christ  placed  woman  on  a  perfect  equality  of  conjugal 
rights  with  the  man — not  as  a  license  for  abuse,  but  as  an 
effective  curb  and  restraint. 

Wherever  there  was  a  woman  entitled  to  the  name  of  a 
wife,  a  prestige  still  clustered  about  her  even  in  the  corrupt 
circles  and  abodes  of  the  rich  polygamists,  and  the  unmar- 
ried concubine,  the  female  factor  of  polygamy,  was  at  an 
unenviable  discount.  But  lust  laughs  at  obstacles. 

Now,  the  point  to  be  noted  is  that  the  lawlessness  of 
polygamy  or  concubinage,  and  the  immorality  thereof,  must 
have  shocked  the  simple-minded  Christians  in  the  devout 
early  days  of  Christianity,  so  that  its  renunciation  should 
give  a  clean  profession  of  allegiance  to  the  Holy  One,  natu- 
rally preceded  baptism,  as  our  author  reports  to  be  his  find- 
ing. Under  such  circumstances  the  incorporation  of  polyg- 
amy in  the  apostolic  church  is  an  unthinkable  or  self-evident 
contradiction. 

I  will  now  submit  some  additional  evidence  in  disproof  of 
the  opinion  and  assertion  that  polygamists  had  a  place  in  the 
apostolic  and  primitive  churches  of  Christ.  Use  will,  in  this 
case,  be  chiefly  made  of  an  inquiry  as  to  the  faith  and  morals 
of  the  early  church  by  Kev.  Joseph  Bingham,  M.  A.,  Fellow 


132 

University  College,  Oxford,  in  nine  volumes,  published  in 
London,  1843. 

The  precise  bearing  of  some  of  these  citations  will  be  ap- 
parent when  it  is  remembered  that  according  to  the  great 
commission  the  test  of  baptism  determined  who  were  ad- 
mitted as  adults  to  church  membership.  Hence,  Bingham 
remarks,  touching  this  feature  of  his  great  work  on  the  an- 
tiquities of  the  Christian  church:  "I  have  been  the  more 
particular  in  making  inquiries  concerning  these  several  kinds 
of  adult  persons,  who  might,  or  might  not,  be  admitted  to 
baptism,  because  these  are  questions  which  the  reader  will  not 
readily  find  so  distinctly  examined  in  modern  writers,  who 
have  professedly  treated  of  the  subject  of  baptism."  The 
burden  of  his  inquiry  relates  to  officialism. 

Basil  the  Great,  Bishop  of  Caasarea,  in  the  fourth  century, 
observes  "that  the  fathers  said  little  or  nothing  of  polygamy, 
as  being  a  brutish  vice,  to  which  mankind  had  no  very  great 
propensity."  He  determines  it  to  be  a  greater  sin  than  forni- 
cation, and  assigns  it  a  longer  course  of  penance.  To  speak 
of  it  as  fornication,  therefore,  was  mild.  Is  it  at  all  likely 
that,  if  polygamy  had  received  apostolic  toleration  in  the 
early  church,  it  would  have  so  thoroughly  died  out  by  the 
time  of  Basil?  About  the  same  age  a  story  was  put  afloat 
that  the  Emperor  Valentinus  married  his  second  wife,  Jus- 
tina,  while  Severa,  his  first  wife,  was  living,  and  with  her  ap- 
proval ;  and  that  he  even  decreed  a  law  in  favor  of  polygamy. 
A  book,  entitled  Polygam,ia  Triumphatrix — Polygamy  Tri- 
umphant— was  reported  to  have  been  written  in  praise  of  this 
law.  But  no  such  law  appears  in  either  of  the  codes  of 
Justinian,  and  a  thorough  search  by  such  scholars  as  Baro- 
nius  and  Valesius  concludes  that  the  story  was  a  groundless 


133 

fiction.  Indeed,  there  is  much  in  the  codes  quite  the  con- 
trary, as,  for  example,  the  edict  of  Diocletian,  where  he  says : 
"No  Eoman  was  allowed  to  have  two  wives  at  once,  but  was 
liable  to  be  punished  before  a  competent  judge."  It  was  by 
heathen  law  prohibited  to  the  old  Romans.  Sallust  says  that 
the  "Romans  were  used  to  ridicule  polygamy  in  the  bar- 
barians. And  though  Julius  Caesar  attempted  to  have  a  law 
passed  in  favor  of  it,  he  could  not  effect  it."  Plutarch  re- 
marks that  Mark  Antony  was  the  first  that  had  two  wives 
among  the  Romans ;  and  it  is  true  that  a  few  other  conspic- 
uous individuals  set  the  law  temporarily  at  defiance,  such  as 
Sylla,  who  had  five  wives;  Pompey,  five;  CaBsar,  four;  and 
Hortensius  divorced  his  wife  to  many  her  to  a  friend,  which 
transcended  Spartan  laxity.  But  "there  never  was  any  law 
to  authorize  polygamy  in  the  Roman  Empire"  (notes  152). 

Now,  it  may  be  fairly  submitted,  whether  it  is  not  violently 
improbable  that  the  company  of  Christians  who  broke  away 
from  the  heathen  life  and  with  a  holy  zeal  consecrated  them- 
selves to  a  higher  and  holier  life,  would  receive  into  their 
society  lawless  polygamists  who  were  morally  accounted  as 
vile  as  or  more  vile  than  individual  fornicators? 

As  having  a  like  pertinence,  there  was  enacted  a  rule  by 
the  first  Council  of  Toledo,  400  A.  D.?  "which  accounts  it 
the  same  thing  as  polygamy  for  a  man  to  have  a  wife  and  a 
concubine  together;  for  such  an  one  may  not  communicate." 
Here  is  an  explicit  exclusion  of  polygamy  from  the  church. 
Would  such  a  deliverance  have  been  possible,  had  they  be- 
lieved the  apostolic  church  had  in  it  polygamists? 

But  it  is  further  provided,  that  if  he  be  joined  to  one 
woman  only,  whether  wife  or  concubine,  as  he  pleases,  he 
may  not  be  repelled.  In  such  a  case,  "she  was  not  to  be 


134 

accounted  guilty  of  fornication,  nor  he  of  adultery,  in  the 
eye  of  the  church,  provided  they  kept  together  faithfully  and 
entirely  to  each  other  by  an  exact  performance  of  the  mutual 
contract  between  them  for  life.  This  was  the  reason  that  the 
church  allowed  such  a  man  to  communicate  who  was  united 
to  a  concubine  in  the  aforesaid  sense."  That  was  what  is 
now  known  as  common  law  marriage  and  valid.  The 
formality  of  a  legal  ceremony  was  lacking. 

These  were  genuine  Christian  monogamous  marriages,  but 
"for  lack  of  ceremony  the  civil  law  inflicted  certain  disabili- 
ties— she  (the  informal  wife)  had  no  rights  in  her  husband's 
estates,  nor  her  children  to  inheritances."  However  humil- 
iating, these  disabilities  did  not  affect  moral  character. 
With  us  these  marriages  would  be  legal  and  valid,  without 
any  disabilities,  for  the  mere  ceremony  is  not  essential  to  the 
formation  of  the  conjugal  relation.*  When  a  man  and  a 
woman  agree  to  be  husband  and  wife,  and  act  and  hold 
themselves  forth  to  those  around  them  as  such,  the  law 
firmly  holds  them  in  the  bonds  of  this  institution.  Mar- 
riage is  not  a  mere  contract,  civil  or  religious,  but  an  institu- 
tion so  that  those  who  enter  into  it  cannot  dissolve  their  rela- 
tion, but  only  the  sovereign  power  of  the  state.  Hence  in 
divorce  or  separation,  a  court,  as  the  organ  of  the  sovereign 
State,  has  to  intervene. 

Now  this  sort  of  concubines  so  called,  being  in  the  nature 

*  In  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  a  gentleman  met  at  the  house  of  a  friend  he  was 
visiting  his  friend's  sister-in-law;  showed  her  marked  attentions,  which 
were  favorably  received.  Once,  when  riding  out,  he  placed  a  ring  on 
her  finger,  with  assurance  that  that  was  sufficient  token  of  their  mar- 
riage. She  went  with  him  to  New  York  City  and  lived  with  him  as  his 
wife.  When  she  had  two  children,  she  saw  in  the  papers  the  notice  of 
the  marriage  of  the  man  she  had  honored  as  her  husband.  The  courts 
defended  her  honor.  It  is  among  the  leading  cases. 


135 

of  real  wives  married  without  the  formalities  of  the  civil  law, 
were  not  reputed  guilty  of  any  immorality,  and  hence  were 
admitted  to  baptism  without  any  further  obligation  even  in 
case  the  husband  was  a  heathen.  There  was  not  in  it  the 
slightest  taint  of  licentious  concubinage  or  polygamy.  In- 
deed this  was  a  formal  condemnation  of  polygamy. 

Moreover,  if  the  woman  thus  informally  taken  was  a  slave, 
he  had  either  to  dismiss  or  formally  marry  her;  otherwise 
he  would  be  cast  out  (notes  156).  Here  was  formal  and 
positive  anti-polygamy  in  the  church.  It  is  not  possible  to 
think  these  early  churches  accepted  even  a  glimmer  of 
polygamy  as  receiving  apostolic  sanction  in  the  church  of 
Christ. 

There  is  no  need  of  pursuing  this  line  of  inquiry  further, 
as  these  various  illustrations  of  the  early  and  pervasive  frac- 
tice  of  the  Christian  church  contribute  confirmatory  proof  of 
the  monogamous  interpretation  placed  on  Paul's  epistles  and 
the  teachings  of  Christ.  The  fact  of  Paul  being  a  Roman 
citizen  is  worthy  of  being  recalled  and  remembered  in  this 
connection.  He  understood  Roman  law  as  well  as  Roman 
custom.  It  was  to  him  a  familiar  fact  that  the  so-called 
polygamy  of  the  Gentiles  was  a  vulgar  and  lawless  concu- 
binage. Paul's  injunction  of  obedience  to  the  laws  of  the 
State,  as  in  Rom.  xiii:  1-7,  is  a  virtual  condemnation  of 
polygamy  and  enforcement  of  monogamy. 

In  the  Centenary  Conference,  1888  (vol.  2:  69,  70),  Dean 
Vahl.  presiding,  said: 

"This  meeting  is  to  be  a  continuation  of  the  meet- 
ing which  was  held  here  on  Tuesday  morning,  on  the 
relation  of  the  missionary  to  social  customs,  such  as 
caste,  slavery,  polygamy,  Indian  marriage  law.  etc. 


136 

I  should  like,  before  I  call  upon  any  gentleman  to 
speak,  to  make  some  observations  about  polygamy. 
It  is  necessary  that  we  should  arrive  at  right  conclu- 
sions and  make  right  distinctions  in  regard  to  these 
grave  subjects.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  make  a  distinction  between  polygamy 
and  concubinage.  It  has  been  asked,  'Why  has  not 
Christ  forbidden  polygamy?'  and  'Why  is  polygamy 
not  forbidden  in  the  New  Testament?'  For  myself 
I  do  not  believe  that  polygamy  existed  at  all  in  the 
Hebrew  and  the  great  Latin  world,  at  the  time  of 
Christ  and  the  Apostles.  Herod  Antipas,  it  is  true, 
had  two  wives,  but  he  divorced  his  first  wife,  and 
lived  only  with  one.  It  was  the  same  in  the  great 
Roman  world.  I  have  never  seen  anything  in  the 
classics  to  lead  us  to  believe  that  polygamy  existed  at 
that  time.  There  was  very  great  licentiousness,  and 
there  was  concubinage.  A  man  had  a  wife — but, 
though  he  lived  with  many  others,  he  had  but  one 
wife." 

CHAPTER  XII. 

"FREE  LOVE." 

The  question  respecting  polygamy  in  the  church  at  any 
time  is  a  question  of  fact,  and  where  not  settled  by  explicit 
utterance  must  be  approached,  as  has  been  done  in  this 
treatise,  like  all  other  questions  of  fact,  by  inference  and 
cumulative  evidence — "by  necessary  consequence."  From 
the  explicit  teachings  of  the  Savior  in  his  several  discourses 
on  the  conjugal  relation,  which  indeed  seem  to  settle  the 
question  "expressly,"  authoritatively  and  finally,  so  that  the 
tolerance  of  simultaneous  polygamy  is  to  disobey  Christ;  from 
the  letters  of  Paul,  especially  I  Timothy,  Titus,  I  Corinthians, 
Romans  and  Ephesians,  wherein  he  discourses  more  fully 
than  any  other  sacred  writer  on  the  relations  of  the  sexes; 


137 

from  the  prevailing  monogamous  purport  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment scriptures,  and  of  the  history  of  the  Jewish  people ;  to- 
gether with  the  monogamous  environment  of  the  Gentile  peo- 
ples, from  whom  Christian  converts  were  chiefly  gathered 
into  the  apostolic  and  primitive  churches;  also  from  the 
scanty  but  reliable  and  convincing  evidence  transmitted  to  us 
of  the  completeness  of  the  renunciation  by  the  converts  of  the 
lawless,  lapsed,  and  sinful  customs  and  licentious  practices  of 
the  heathen  nations  and  of  their  own  former  lives  in  becom- 
ing Christians,  whose  high  standard  and  practice  of  morals 
and  religious  holiness  rendered  them  such  a  peculiar  people 
and  so  different  from  the  surrounding  world,  as  to  provoke 
the  sarcasm  and  ridicule  of  godless  poets  and  the  persecution 
of  wicked  rulers — when  the  evidence  is  collected  in  reason- 
able measure  from  these  various  sources,  pertinent  to  the 
question,  as  has  been  previously  indicated  in  this  discourse, 
it  amounts  to  a  forcible  and  probable  proof,  grounding  a  vio- 
lent presumption,  against  polygamists — simultaneous  polyga- 
mists — having  been  members  at  all  of  the  apostolic  and  prim- 
itive Christian  societies  or  churches.  And  there  is  a  total 
absence  of  any  positive  proof  in  support  of  it.  The  Savior's 
language  is  confessedly  and  strictly  monognamous,  not  open 
to  two  views  on  the  subject,  and  his  sole  relation  to  his  bride, 
the  Lamb's  wife,  finds  a  suitable  symbol  only  in  the  divinely- 
instituted  monogamy  which  served  the  prophets  for  ages  as  a 
present  and  prospective  image  in  portraying  the  relation  of 
Israel  to  the  one  living  and  true  God,  in  contrast  with  the 
vileness  and  wickedness  of  polygamy  as  the  shameful  em- 
blem of  godless  and  licentious  idolatry  and  polytheism,  but 
found  its  true  climax  and  realization  in  the  sacred  relation  of 
the  Christ  to  his  redeemed  people  as  his  bride.  "And  there 


138 

came  one  of  the  seven  angels,  *  *  *  and  he  spake  with 
me,  saying:  Come  hither;  I  will  show  thee  the  bride,  the  wife 
of  the  Lamb.  And  he  carried  me  away  in  the  spirit  to  a 
mountain  great  and  high,  and  showed  me  the  holy  city  Jeru- 
salem, coming  down  out  of  heaven  from  God,  having  the 
glory  of  God."  "And  I  saw  no  temple  therein ;  for  the  Lord 
God  the  Almighty,  and  the  Lamb,  are  the  temple  thereof; 
And  the  city  hath  no  need  of  the  sun,  neither  of  the  moon,  to 
shine  upon  it ;  for  the  glory  of  God  did  lighten  it,  and  the 
lamp  thereof  is  the  Lamb.  And  the  nations  shall  walk 
amidst  the  light  thereof;  and  the  kings  of  the  earth  bring 
their  glory  into  it."  "And  he  showed  me  a  river  of  water  of 
life,  bright  as  crystal,  proceeding  out  of  the  throne  of  God 
and  of  the  Lamb,  in  the  midst  of  the  street  thereof.  And  on 
this  side  of  the  river  and  on  that  was  the  tree  of  life ;  and  the 
leaves  of  the  tree  were  for  the  healing  of  the  nations.  And 
he  saith  unto  me:  Write,  Blessed  are  they  that  are  bidden  to 
the  marriage  supper  of  the  Lamb.  And  he  saith  unto  me, 
These  are  true  words  of  God." 

"And  the  Spirit  and  THE  BRIDE  say,  Come :  And  he  that 
heareth,  let  him  say,  Come.  And  he  that  is  athirst,  let  him 
come ;  and  he  that  will,  let  him  take  the  water  of  life  freely" 
(Rev.  xxi:  9,  10,  22-24;  xxii:  1,  2,  17;  xix:  9). 

Only  think  of  this  glorious  ideal  state,  to  which  every  com- 
pany of  believers  has  ever  aspired  with  longing  desire,  having 
been  befouled  by  apostolic  approval  or  toleration  of  the  actual 
practice  of  polygamy  by  the  members  of  Christ's  church! 
And  yet  the  only  prevention  of  this  heathen  and  diabolical 
prostitution  by  the  company  of  the  saints  was  to  keep  sepa- 
rate from  it.  It  is  true  the  church  was  imperfect  and  beset 
with  sinful  practices;  but  they  were  disapproved  and  disci- 


139 

plined,  and  no  such  radical  apostacy  from  the  fundamental 
idea  of  the  church  as  the  tolerance  of  polygamy  is  discernible. 

And  Jude  throws  light  on  this  aspect  of  the  situation  when 
he  says,  verses  3,  4: 

"Beloved,  while  I  was  giving  all  diligence  to  write  unto 
you  of  our  common  salvation,  I  was  constrained  to  write  unto 
you  exhorting  you  to  contend  earnestly  for  the  faith  which 
was  once  for  all  delivered  unto  the  saints.  For  there  are 
certain  men.  crept  in  privily,  even  they  who  were  of  old  writ- 
ten of  beforehand  unto  this  condemnation,  ungodly  men. 
turning  the  grace  of  God  into  lasciviousness,  and  denying 
our  only  Master  and  Lord,  Jesus  Christ."  "Woe  unto  them. 
Hidden  rocks  in  your  love-feasts  when  they  feast  with  you" 
(11,  12).  The  apostolic  Christians  were  not  easy-going 
weaklings,  but  wide-awake  and  strong  men  to  detect  and  resist 
impostors  and  hypocrites.  And  the  presence  of  the  Ploly 
Spirit  gave  them  discernment  and  courage.  If  the  vice  of 
polygamy  was  in  the  church  it  was  hidden  in  the  double 
lives  of  "certain  men  crept  in  privily/7  and  not  with  the 
knowledge  and  sympathetic  sanction  and  toleration  of  God's 
people.  There  is  no  infallible  remedy  against  hypocrites. 
If  there  was  simultaneous  polygamy  in  the  church  it  was 
there  secretly,  as  it  now  infests  our  monogamous  society. 
Every  few  days  the  mask  falls  or  is  torn  away  from  some 
impostor,  who  has  been  living  a  plural  life.  It  is  not  thus 
in  our  church  at  Luebo.  These  moral  lepers  are  known  and 
by  the  officers  of  the  church  are  actually  thrust  into  the  fel- 
lowship of  the  saints.  Shall  this  thing  continue?  This 
polygamy  is  open,  flagrant  and  defiant. 

"He  that  hath  an  ear,  let  him  hear  what  the  Spirit  saith 
unto  the  churches" — the  seven  churches  of  Asia  Minor. 


140 

They  were  in  an  imperfect,  struggling  condition,  but  the  pre- 
vailing and  repeated  promise  was  to  him  that  overcometh. 
The  attitude  of  the  Christian  societies  was  not  one  of  careless 
and  easy-going  indifference,  but  of  wrestling  vigilance  as  a 
condition  of  self-preservation. 

The  seven  churches  of  Asia  Minor  were  in  a  mixed  condi- 
tion, and  yet  the  lukewarm  Laodicea,  the  most  hopeless  of 
them  all,  had  some  ground  of  encouragement,  and  is  ex- 
horted to  repent  and  given  a  promise.  A  study  of  these 
churches  seems  to  indicate  that  they  were  not  lifeless,  nor 
wholly  passive  to  evil  influences,  but  that  there  was  in  the 
most  of  them  the  inextinguishable  life  over  which  the  Spirit 
brooded,  is  in  evidence  as  they  are  exhorted  to  hear  "what  the 
Spirit  saith  to  the  churches"  (iii:  22) ;  and  to  Laodicea,  the 
most  hopeless,  the  exhortation  is  given.  What  was  needed 
was  the  assertion  of  this  life  in  active  service  and  discipline. 

The  case  of  Jezebel  in  Thyatira  looks  like  a  case  of  polyan- 
dria,  where  she  is  guilty,  not  of  transient  acts  of  licentious 
fornication,  but  of  an  habitual  state  into  which  she  had  apos- 
tatized. "And  I  gave  her  time  to  repent,  and  she  willeth  not 
to  repent  of  her  fornication,"  or  female  polygamy.  Then 
the  discipline  comes :  "Behold,  I  cast  her  into  a  bed,  and  them 
that  commit  adultery  with  her,  unto  great  tribulation  with 
her,  except  they  repent  of  her  works"  (21,  22,  23) .  If  there 
was  this  discipline,  as  the  Spirit  enjoins,  in  these  early 
churches  for  such  offenses  against  Christian  morals,  against 
such  heathenish  practices  as  polygamy  and  polyandria,  it  is 
good  proof  against  their  %being  knowingly  admitted  from 
heathenism  into  the  church.  There  is  a  manifest  difference 
between  an  apostacy  into  a  vile  life  and  the  admission  of  one 
already  as  a  heathen  living  that  life;  but  neither  is  entitled 


141 

to  the  slightest  allowance  or  toleration.  The  habitual  of- 
fender presents  a  chronic  case  aggravated.  It  is  a  self-con- 
tradiction to  discipline  a  lapse  into  idolatry,  but  to  tolerate 
the  habitual  idolator;  a  lapse  into  adultery,  but  tolerate  the 
habitual  adulterer;  the,^pse  into  polygamy,  but  tolerate  the 
habitual  polygamist.  It  is  a  self-contradiction  to  admit  a 
poly  gain  ist  into  the  church  and  to  expel  a  member  who  be- 
comes n  poiygamist.  "If  ye  have  respect  of  persons,  ye  com- 
mit sin." 

Von  Dobschuts  calls  attention  to  the  historic  fact  that 
it  was  not  till  towards  the  end  of  the  second  century  of  the 
Christian  era  that  there  was  a  serious  falling  away  from  the 
primitive  high  standard  of  moral  and  Christian  life  in  the 
primitive  churches.  But  even  after  that  there  is  no  evidence 
that  polygamists,  even  down  to  modern  days,  were  admitted 
to  the  communion  of  the  Christian  church.  Whatever  may 
be  said  of  the  wholesale  methods  of  St.  Xavier  and  others, 
the  Catholic  canons  have  never  allowed  it;  and  if  such  a  thing 
occurred,  it  was  furtive,  individual,  and  irregular.  In  this 
matter,  for  over  a  hundred  years,  the  Moravians  have  been  a 
thorn  in  the  side  of  missions  by  consigning  the  treatment  of 
such  cases  to  a  sort  of  provincial  determination  of  the  mis- 
sionaries in  the  field,  but  with  emphasis  rejecting  polyandria, 
thus,  unlike  the  Savior,  conceding  to  man  prerogatives  in 
the  conjugal  relation  denied  to  woman.  And  thus  they  pub- 
lish their  unwisdom  and  inconsistency  instead  of  a  stern 
notification  to  polygamists  that  their  inlmoral  and  cruel 
divorcements  and  vile  and  lawless  concubinage  would  not 
find  a  congenial  nor  an  allowable  sphere  of  activity  amongst 
the  poor  monogamous  Christian  societies,  wherein  the  strug- 
gle was  to  live,  not  only  the  natural  life,  but  also  the  new  life 


142 

of  holiness  and  spiritual  consecration.  The  polygamists 
should  be  treated  like  Hernias'  rejected  stones  in  building 
the  Christian  tower  to  the  honor  of  the  Holy  One. 

It  is  the  Moravians  who  have  set  the  pace  for  one  of  the 
most  inconsistent  positions  that  couH  well  be  conceived,  viz : 
That  those  who  enter  polygamy  must  be  expelled,  but  those 
living  in  polygamy  may  be  received  without  renouncing  it. 
(Report  of  1888  Conf.,  vol.  2:  166.) 

In  the  opening  discourse  in  the  Exeter  Hall  Conference 
•of  1888,  on  the  subject  of  polygamy,  by  the  Rev.  W.  Holm, 
President  of  the  Danish  Evangelical  Missionary  Society,  the 
special  topic  was:  "How  the  Mission  Church  is  to  deal  with 
such  polygamists  as  wish  to  be  baptized."  The  general  con- 
clusion is,  like  that  of  Hennas,  "that  a  polygamist  cannot  be 
baptized,  but  must  remain  in  the  state  of  a  catechumen." 
Without  attempting  to  summarize  the  discourse  there  were 
two  utterances  therein  which  I  desire  to  appropriate.  The 
first  is  this.  He  says:  "As  far  as  I  can  see  we  cannot  allow 
the  polygamist  to  be  baptized  if  he  retains  more  than  one 
wife  after  the  baptism ;  for  by  this  sacrament  we  are  clad  in 
Christ  that  we  should  live  a  new  life  in  Him.  How  then  can 
he  be  baptized  who  in  receiving  baptism  will  reserve  to  him- 
self to  remain  within  Christ  in  one  part  of  his  life,  in 
which  he  will  remain  in  the  old  life  derived  from  his  heathen- 
ism? What  formerly  might  be  looked  upon  as  something 
excusable,  as  something  belonging  to  what  God  in  His  long 
suffering  tolerates  (  Acts  17:  30;  Rom.  3;  25),  that  becomes 
real  sin  to  the  baptized"  (p.  55).  But  he  coupled  with  this 
sound  position  the  error  that  it  is  sin  to  break  up  the  polyg- 
amous relation,  and  hence  concluded  that  perpetual 
•catechumen age  outside  the  church  was  the  only  alternative 
till  Providence  relieved  him  of  his  plural  relation. 


143 

The  other  passage  effectually  disposes  of  a  plausible 
fallacy  which  vitiates  the  deliverances  on  the  Chesapeake 
overture  by  Synod  and  Assembly. 

President  Holm  says  (pp.  53-54) :  "Tho?  there  were 
many  illicit  connection*  in  the  Grseco-Roman  community, 
there  was  no  polygamy  to  be  found,  so  the  problem  possibly 
did  not  exist  at  all  in  the  Apostolic  time.  Besides  it  could 
not  be  shown  that  polygamists  had  been  baptized  at  all  in 
the  ancient  church.  But,  at  all  events,  the  monogamic 
matrimony  must  now,  most  decidedly  be  maintained  as  being 
the  only  one  in  harmony  with  the  Christian  faith  and 
Christian  life;  the  only  one  justified  by  the  Lord's  Word 
and  Spirit.  And  how  should  we  be  able  to  maintain  this,  if 
by  baptism  we  admitted  poylgamists,  with  or  without  their 
two  or  more  wives,  into  the  church?  It  would  be  nearly 
impossible  to  make  it  clear  to  the  new  Christians  in  the  mis- 
sion church — [I  may  add,  or  to  anybody  else] — that  polyg- 
amy, which  was  sin  when  entered  into  by  baptized  people, 
nay,  a  sin  so  great  that  it  would  lead  to  the  excommunication 
of  those  who  made  themselves  guilty  of  it,  could  be  permitted 
to  those  who  had  entered  into  it  before  their  baptism,  and 
that  they  could  continue  in  it  without  losing  their  privileges 
as  members  of  the  church.  Not  only  the  new  Christians  in 
foreign  countries,  but  also  many  Christians  at  home  would 
not  be  able  to  understand  this.  They  would  be  offended  by 
it,  look  upon  it  as  a  transgression  of  the  law  of  Christ,  and 
turn  away  from  a  Mission  tolerating  such  things.  It  would 
appear  to  them  as  if  the  Mission  associated  with  those  at 
home,  who,  while  proclaiming  free  thought,  also  proclaim 
what  they  call  "free  love,"  teaching  that  a  man  is  not  to  be 
tied  to  one  woman,  nor  a  woman  to  one  husband,  but  that 
they  may  connect  themselves  with  whatever  number  such  a 


144 

love  might  connect  them  with.  At  a  time  when  so  much  is 
done  in  Christendom  to  violate  the  bonds  of  matrimony,  the 
Mission  should  carefully  avoid  everything  apparently  point- 
ing in  the  same  direction." 

I  confess  that  I  know  of  no  valid  answer  to  Rev.  Mr. 
Holm's  deduction  that  the  tolerance  of  polygamy  in  a 
church  member  on  the  one  hand  and  the  excommunication 
of  it  on  the  other,  so  obliterates  the  distinctions  between  right 
and  wrong  in  the  relations  of  the  sexes  as  to  be  the  equivalent 
of  "free  love."  Upon  identically  the  same  polygamous  re- 
lation, this  is  blowing  hot  in  one  case  and  cold  in  the  other ; 
it  is  fish  for  one  and  flesh  for  the  other. 

The  General  Assembly  of  1904  solemnly  declares  "that 
the  Presbyterian  Church  is  unalterably  opposed  to  polygamy, 
and  would  not,  under  any  circumstances,  tolerate  the  en- 
trance into  polygamous  relations  of  any  of  its  members,  even 
in  heathen  lands,"  yet  at  the  same  moment  it  threw  its  arms 
of  protection  around  and  embraces  others,  actually  in  the 
polygamous  relations  for  years,  as  church  members,  without 
even  a  word  of  disapproval  or  suggestion  of  discipline  or  re- 
nunciation. I  take  no  pride  in  pointing  out  such  gross  in- 
consistency, nor  do  I  make  the  slightest  apology  for  doing  so. 
It  is  a  regrettable  state  of  facts,  and  it  is  my  right  and  my 
duty,  under  the  vows  of  my  ministry,  to  do  so — "To  be 
zealous  and  faithful  in  maintaining  the  truths  of  the  gospel 
and  the  purity  and  peace  of  the  church,  whatever  persecution 
or  opposition  may  arise  unto  you  (me)  011  that  account'' 
(B.  Ch.  Order  119,  §6). 

How  such  a  gross  and  self-contradictory  absurdity  ever 
gained  currency  outside  or  inside  of  the  Moravian  com- 
munion can  only  be  explained  by  a  piously  thoughtless 


145 

sequacity — being  first  enunciated  by  some  stupid  blunderer 
and  then  passively  acquiesced  in  by  others,  intolerance 
on  the  one  hand  blinding  to  the  tolerance  on  the  other  hand. 

CHAPTER  XIII. 
LESSONS  FROM  MISSIONARIES — AFRICA. 

It  is  now  proposed,  before  conclusion,  to  view  this  subject 
to  some  extent  through  the  eyes  of  modern  missionaries,  as 
the  accounts  they  have  given  us  of  their  experience  and  ob- 
servation as  workers  among  the  heathen  will  enable  us  to 
do  so.  I  am  about  to  submit  the  proof  that  the  great  burden 
of  mission  work  is  borne  by  those  who  are  intolerant  of 
polygamy,  and  that  the  polygamists  are  a  faction  who  are 
impeding  mission  work. 

The  subject  of  this  discourse  is  polygamy,  not  as  a  matter 
of  history  nor  of  ethnology,  but  in  its  relations  to  the  Chris- 
tian church,  and  especially  our  Southern  Presbyterian  Church. 
In  Exeter  Hall,  London,  1888,  there  was  held,  from  June 
9th  to  19th,  "The  Centenary  Conference  on  the  Protestant 
Missions  of  the  World.'7  It  consisted  of  1,519  delegates  from 
139  societies  in  Great  Britain,  Ireland,  and  the  colonies,  Eu- 
rope, Canada,  and  the  United  States.  These  delegates  repre- 
sented missions  in  all  parts  of  the  world.  Their  perfect  free- 
dom of  utterance  gave  a  marvelous  variety  and  interest  to 
every  topic  considered.  And  among  the  topics  considered, 
no  one  was  deemed  more  important  and  interesting  than  that 
of  polygamy.  The  topics  assigned  for  the  third  day,  June 
12  were:  (a)  Caste;  (b)  Slavery;  (c)  Polygamy;  (d)  Indian 
Marriage  Law,  etc.  But  the  topic  which  absorbed  the  occa- 
sion, hardly  admitting  the  mention  of  the  others,  was  polyg- 
10 


146 

amy.  The  record  of  the  deliverances  on  this  subject,  written 
and  oral,  by  the  interlocutors,  is  found  in  vol.  2 :  49-81 — over 
thirty  pages — and  over  thirty  persons  participated  in  the 
animated  discussion. 

The  Ecumenical  Missionary  Conference  of  1900  was  al- 
most a  sequel  to  that  of  1888.  It  was  held  in  Carnegie  Hall, 
New  York  City,  from  Af>ril  21  to  May  1.  In  the  fall  of 
1854  the  first  of  these  missionary  conventions  was  held  in  the 
United  States,  in  order  "to  unite  in  cordial  love  and  sympa- 
thy the  friends  of  missions ;"  and  the  special  occasion  thereof 
was  the  presence  of  Dr.  Alexander  Duff,  the  most  distin- 
guished missionary  of  his  day.  That  was  over  fifty  years 
since,  and  quite  a  number  of  like  assemblies  have  been  held 
since  that,  but  the  two  largest  and  most  influential  were  those 
of  1888  and  1900.  In  1900,  2,000  representatives  or  dele- 
gates from  more  than  200  societies  were  convened,  and  the 
President  of  the  United  States  (McKinley)  and  the  Gover- 
nor of  New  York  State  extended  to  them  a  sympathetic 
welcome. 

There  were  more  than  seventy  (70)  sessions  of  this  Con- 
gress, members  being  detailed  to  address  audiences  simul- 
taneously in  different  churches  and  halls.  The  program 
of  discussion  bristles  with  topics  and  speakers,  and  about  six 
pages  of  the  second  volume  report  are  occupied  with  the  sub- 
ject of  polygamy.  The  discussion  is  by  no  means  so  ex- 
tended and  full  as  at  Exeter  Hall,  1888,  but  the  same  earnest- 
ness and  divergence  of  opinion  appear. 

1.  Some  lessons  should  be  learned  from  the  discussion  of 
this  subject  in  these  various  assemblies.    And  one  conspicuous 
lesson  is.that  there  is  a  great  lack  of  unanimity  on  the  subject. 

2.  Certain  of  the  advocates  of  the  admission  of  polygamy 


147 

pleaded  that  the  course  respecting  it  should  be  the  same  as  in 
the  apostolic  church  with  slavery.  As  the  influence  of  the 
church  abolished  slavery  so  it  would  polygamy.  (So  Rev. 
Hugh  White  argues  in  his  letter  for  our  Presbyteries.)  Hence, 
admit  polygamy  into  the  church  as  a  reform  school.  But  it 
seems  to  be  perfectly  certain  that  the  constitution  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  fails  to  provide  for  such  a  reformatory, 
and  uncompromisingly  condemns  polygamy  as  a  sin  and  in 
violation  of  the  law  of  God.  Besides,  we  know  that  the  rela- 
tion of  bondservant  and  master  was  in  the  apostolic  church 
(Eph.  vi:  5-9;  Col.  3:  22— iv:  1),  but  there  is  absolutely 
no  proof  that  polygamy  was  in  that  church,  and  the  conclu- 
sive proof  is  against  it. 

3.  It  is  pleaded  that  though  the  polygamous  relation  is 
sinful,  it  would  be  sinful  to  break  it  up.  But  as  applied 
to  a  sinful  relation  this  is  a  misleading  fallacy.  It  is 
stated  thus:  "It  is  an  admitted  principle  that  there  may 
be  relations  which  it*  was  sin  to  form,  and  which  yet  it  is 
sinful  to  break  when  formed."  Within  certain  limitations 
this  is  true.  But  this  does  not  hold  true  at  all  where  the  rela- 
tion formed  is  sinful,  and  may  be  voluntarily  terminated. 
It  never  can  be  a  sin  to  quit  sin.  This  is  the  case  with 
polygamy.  A  word  farther  may  be  allowable. 

I  will  illustrate.  A  man's  relation  to  an  illegitimate  child 
was  formed  in  sin;  but  it  would  be  sinful  in  him  not  to 
recognize  his  obligation  to  that  child,  for  neither  he  nor  it, 
nor  both,  can  dissolve  that  relation  and  the  consequent  obli- 
gation. The  child  is  innocent  of  any  guilt.  Reciprocal 
duties  arise  from  the  relation.  The  father  cannot  absolve 
himself  from  the  obligation  consequent  upon  his  voluntary 
and  sinful  deed.  The  part  of  the  child  is  passive,  but  the 
relation  is  abiding  and  binding. 


148 

For  example.  The  law  of  China  is  monogamous.  The 
code  has  been  already  quoted  (p.  63).  Parental  and  family 
custom  allot  to  him  his  lawful  wife.  He  cannot  claim  on  that 
account  exemption  from  obligation  to  cherish  her  when  he 
has  recognized  her,  nor  can  a  child  plead  no  obligation  to 
unchosen  parentage.  Every  concubine  is  taken  by  the  man's 
own  choice  and  also  by  her  choice,  for  no  woman,  the 
code  provides,  can  be  compelled  to  become  a  concubine. 
Both  parties  are  voluntarily  in  the  relation;  and  both 
are  capable  of  terminating  it.  It  is  an  unlawful  and  sinful 
relation  whose  continuance  between  them  is  voluntary.  Evi- 
dently the  voluntary  continuance  in  sin  is  an  aggravation  of 
the  sin.  The  obligation  of  a  real  legal  husband  and  wife  is 
different,  for  the  relation  is  right. 

The  case  is  different  with  the  innocent  children.  The 
father  and  the  concubine  mother  sinned  in  forming  that 
relation  of  parentage  to  those  children  ;^  and  they  would  both 
ein  in  ignoring  or  attempting  to  break  it  up,  were  it  possible 
to  do  so ;  in  fact  they  cannot  break  it  up.  The  existing  rela- 
tion to  the  children  is  formed  in  sin,  but  is  insuperable  and 
not  subject  to  their  will.  The  children  are  innocent,  but  the 
parents  are  both  guilty.  Hence  the  duty  of  breaking  up  the 
sinful  relation  between  themselves,  whose  continuance  de- 
pends on  their  own  choice,  but  not  between  them  and  their 
innocent  children.  The  principle  appealed  to,  it  must  be 
apparent,  does  not  apply  to  the  formation  of  a  sinful  relation 
by  a  sinful  act ;  and  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  the  virtuous 
or  innocent  formation  of  a  sinful  relation,  nor  can  a  sinful 
relation  be  innocently  continued. 

The  inference  is  drawn  by  Dr.  Dabney:  "There  appears, 
then,  no  evidence — from  the  passages  under  comment — that 
polygamy  was  allowed  in  the  laws  of  Moses."  Undoubtedly, 


149 

by  parity  of  reasoning,  the  conclusion  should  be,  no  evidence 
that  polygamy  was  allowed  in  the  Christian  Church.  It 
would  be  a  shocking  absurdity  to  infer  from  this  argument 
that  there  is  no  polygamy  in  the  Pentateuch,  but  that  there 
is  polygamy  allowed  in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  no  com- 
pliment to  Dr.  Dabney  to  suppose  him  guilty  of  such  an  ab- 
surd, illogical  crotchet  (Exodus  xxi:  7-12,  and  Deut.  xxi: 
15-17). 

I  deny  that  a  case  can  arise  where  it  would  be  a  sin  to 
abandon  sin,  under  any  circumstances  whatever.  Such  a  case 
would  necessarily  involve  self-contradiction.  It  would  be  the 
precise  equivalent  of  the  position,  that  circumstances  may 
exist  or  arise  where  it  would  be  right  to  do  wrong,  i.  e.f  right 
to  commit  sin. 

4.  All  who  hold — and,  surprising  as  it  may  appear,  some 
do  hold: — that  it  is  sinful  to  separate  from  plural  wives,  do 
so  on  the  false  assumption  that  these  so-called  plural  wives 
are  sure-enough  or  real  wives.  The  law  of  monogamy  is  that 
"Marriage  is  between  one  man  and  one  woman:  and  neither 
is  it  lawful  for  any  man  to  have  more  than  one  wife,  nor  for 
any  woman  to  have  more  than  one  husband,  at  the  same 
time."  The  Koran  allows  four  wives;  the  Bible  one.  In 
a  recent  divorce  convention  in  Washington  City  of  delegates 
appointed  by  the  governors  of  all  our  States,  except  South 
Carolina,  in  which  State  no  divorce  has  ever  been  granted, 
an  eminent  lawyer,  the  chairman  of  the  committee  on  reso- 
lutions, Hon.  J.  Walter  Smith,  gave  forth  an  accepted  defini- 
tion of  marriage,  as  standing  over  against  all  schemes  of 
divorce  or  separation,  that  marriage  is  the  permanent  union 
for  life  of  one  man  and  one  woman.  This  was  put  forth,  not 
as  a  Bible  doctrine,  but  as  a  doctrine  of  reason,  or  an  expres- 
sion of  the  natural  law  of  marriage  and  was  unquestioned. 


150 

We  have  before  us,  then,  a  two-horned  dilemma:  monog- 
amy and  simultaneous  polygamy.  There  is  no  third,  or  other 
alternative  admissible.  The  parties  to  the  plural  connection 
are  true  wives  or  they  are  not.  If  they  are  true  wives,  then 
monogamy  is  false  and  a  delusion.  If  monogamy  is  true, 
they  are  not  and  cannot  be  true  wedded  wives,  and  their 
relation  is  violative  of  the  law  of  marriage  and  adulterous. 
They  are  not  married  at  all,  for  by  the  law  of  God  only  one 
woman  at  a  time  can  be  married  to  any  man,  but  are  in  the 
sight  of  heaven  and  of  sound  reason,  as  court  decisions  in- 
dicate, living  lives  of  licentiousness  and  not  of  wedlock. 
Their  ignorance  may  mitigate  but  does  not  abolish,  nor 
absolve  from  guilt  and  responsibility.  We  have  seen  that 
leading  peoples  of  ancient  and  modern  times  have  been 
monogamous  where  Bible  teaching  was  unknown. 

True  of  classic  nations  in  ancient  times,  it  is  true  also  of 
China,  Japan,  and  India  where  these  plural  relations, 
though  practiced  and  customary,  are  irregular  and  illicit 
and  concubinous.  The  true  wife  is  never  confounded 
with  them,  nor  degraded  to  their  level,  the  concubines 
all  being  of  subordinate  and  even  rank.  May  not,  as 
already  suggested,  this  recognized  distinction  of  the  one 
true  wife  prove  to  be  the  vulnerable  point  of  polygamy  as 
a  handhold  for  lifting  the  family  out  of  the  ditch?  There 
is  usually  a  vulnerable  point  in  Satan's  armor ;  and  he  really 
seems  to  have  dipped  the  human  family  in  the  vile  Styx*  of 

*In  philosophy,  an  attempt  at  a  new  philosophy,  in  the  hand  writing  of 
James,  is  Pragma'tism ;  of  Schiller,  Humanism;  and  of  Prof.  Howison, 
Pluralism,  which  are  different  titles  of  the  same  scheme  which  dispenses 
with  Monotheism  and  its  corollaries,  and  vainly  attempts  to  rehahili- 
tate  vulgar  utilitarianism  and  polytheism  under  new  names  and  subtle 
distinctions. 


151 

polygamy.  If  monogamy  is  true,  then  this  marital 
pluralism  is  false;  and  if  this  pluralism  is  true,  then 
monogamy  is  false.  And  if  monogamy  is  false,  then 
Christianity  collapses  on  our  hands.  And  pluralism  in  re- 
ligion, whatever  may  be  its  fate  in  pholosophy,  is  enthroned 
to  the  overthrow  of  the  unity  of  Christ's  leadership  of  the 
church  and  the  destruction  of  the  divinely  appointed  and 
sacred  emblem  of  the  relation  of  the  one  true  and  holy  God 
to  the  spiritual  Israel,  with  loose  reins  cast  upon  the  neck  of 
licentious  polytheism  and  degrading  idolatry.  This  is  not 
fanciful,  for  human  nature  is  logical,  inevitably  gravitating 
to  consistent  conclusions  from  its  premises.  Hence  forecasts 
are  legitimate.  In  a  true  sense  monogamy  is  practically  the 
very  heart,  not  only  of  the  family  and  society,  but  of  our 
religion  and  destiny  for  time  and  eternity.  It  is  too  sacred 
to  be  experimented  or  trifled  with  as  is  being  done  by  plu- 
ralist missionaries.  It  is  a  vital  point  of  citizenship  as  well 
as  of  church  membership. 

The  attempt,  however  honestly,  has  been  vainly  made  to 
bolster  up  the  legitimacy  of  polygamy  by  reference  also  to  an 
incident  in  the  life  of  David  (II  Sam.  xii:  8, 11)  in  addition 
to  the  appeal  to  Ex.  21  and  Deut.  21. 

By  Nathan,  Jehovah  said  to  David:  "I  delivered  thee  out 
of  the  hand  of  Saul ;  and  I  gave  thee  thy  master's  house  and 
thy  master's  wives  into  thy  bosom,"  etc.  The  heathen  harem 
of  Saul  had  been  established  by  him  in  conformity  with  the 
heathen  model  of  a  kingdom  which  the  people  chose  to  have 
in  place  of  Jehovah's  rule  over  them.  This  is  explicitly  set 
forth  in  I  Sam.  viii :  5,  7,  9,  19.  Jehovah  said  to  Samuel : 
"They  have  rejected  me — not  you — that  I  should  rule  over 
them."  When  Samuel  tried  to  dissuade  from  their  folly 


152 

and  sinful  rebellion,  they  replied  obstinately:  "Nay,  but  we 
will  have  a  king  over  us,  that  we  may  be  like  all  the  nations." 

Well,  one  of  the  characteristics  of  the  king's  court  among 
the  nations  was  a  harem,  more  for  impressive  worldly  display 
and  influence  through  its  family  connections  than  for  aught 
else.  Lust  was  made  subservient  to  ambition.  When,  there- 
fore, this  turning  over  of  Saul's  harem  to  David  occurred,  it 
simply  meant,  in  oriental  style,  a  complete  obliteration  of  the 
dynasty  and  rule  of  Saul,  and  in  no  manner  implied  a  divine 
sanction  of  the  polygamy  of  the  harem.  The  oriental  dress 
does  not  alter  the  moral  obliquity  covered  by  it.  It  i?  a 
whited  sepulchre. 

Besides,  these  sinful  practices  of  old  which  God's  provi- 
dence bore  with,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  were  not  recorded 
for  imitation,  but  rather  as  warning  against  imitation  of  the 
heathen. 

5.  It  is  asked,  Are  we  to  refuse  admission  into  the  church 
on  earth  of  those  who  would  be  admitted  to  heaven  t  Are  we 
to  refuse  baptism  to  one  who  would  not  be  excluded  from 
heaven?  These  polygamous  or  concubinous  patriarchs  in 
Israel  who  indulged  this  course  of  life,  it  is  sufficiently  plain, 
either  did  not  know,  as  we  do  under  gospel  light,  that  it  was 
sinful,  or  else  that  they  willfully  indulged  in  this  as  in  other 
sins.  But  if  ignorant,  their  ignorance  would  not  have  made 
it  sinless,  for  a  large  portion  of  man's  sins  are  sins  of  igno- 
rance. The  seriousness  and  frequency  with  which  Leviticus, 
ch.  iv,  provides  sacrifices  for  sins  of  ignorance,  has  an  in- 
structive bearing  on  this  matter.  We  all  have  profound 
reason  to  be  thankful  to  God  that  his  forgiving  mercy  is  not 
limited  by  our  imperfect  knowledge. 

"Who  can  discern  his  errors? 


153 

"Cleanse  thou  me  from  hidden  faults"  (Ps.  xix:  12). 

Undoubtedly,  with  our  light,  the  polygamists  of  ancient 
Israel  would  have  been  debarred  from  the  feast  of  the  Lord. 
Anfl  were  they  in  our  midst,  living  this  sinful  life,  we  would 
not  be  at  liberty  to  associate  with  them  as  brethren.  Says 
Paul:  "I  wrote  you  in  my  epistle  to  have  no  company  with 
fornicators;  *  *  *  but  as  it  is,  I  wrote  unto  you  not  to 
keep  company,  if  any  man  that  is  named  a  brother  be  a 
fornicator;  *  *  *  with  such  a  one,  no,  not  to  eat"  (I  Cor. 
v:  9,  11).  This  is  scriptural  and  practical  Christianity. 
Their  twilight  gropings  do  not  give  the  pace  to  our  noonday 
steppings.  Had  they  been  taught  as  Christ  and  the  apostles 
have  taught  us,  and  as  the  missionaries  should  teach  the 
heathen,  ignorance  could  not  be  pleaded.  When  taught  the 
sin  of  polygamy,  a  heathen  is  no  longer  in  ignorance,  and 
continuance  in  it  is  aggravated  sinning  against  light.  The 
prior  life  may,  and  should,  receive  allowance,  but  not  the 
life  after  that  enlightenment. 

6.  The  sincere  and  avowed  willingness  to  renounce  all 
known  sin  is  a  valid  test  of  conversion,  and  is  a  proper  con- 
dition of  admission  to  the  church.  Those  who  would  refuse 
to  renounce  their  polygamy  are  not  genuine  converts.  They 
have  not  become  followers  of  Christ.  At  least  they  do  not 
make  it  evident  to  our  limited  vision  so  that  we  are  warranted 
in  acting  on  it. 

"And  when  they  heard  this  (the  story  of  the  crucifixion 
of  the  holy  one  of  God  at  Pentecost)  they  were  pricked  in 
their  heart,  and  said  unto  Peter  and  the  rest  of  the  Apostles : 
Brethren,  what  shall  we  do?  And  Peter  said  unto  them — 
the  very  parties  guilty  of  the  sin  of  which  he  had  dis- 
coursed— Repent  ye,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the 


154 

name  of  Jesus  Christ  unto  the  remission  of  your  sins;  and 
ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  Repentance  is 
here  preliminary  to  baptism.  But  what  is  it  to  repent?  We 
need  no  better  answer  than  that  given  in  the  Shorter  Cate- 
chism :  "Repentance  unto  life  is  a  saving  grace,  whereby  a 
sinner,  out  of  a  true  sense  of  his  sin  and  apprehension  of 
the  mercy  of  God  in  Christ,  doth,  with  grief  and  hatred  of 
his  sin,  turn  from  it  unto  Ood,  with  full  purpose  of,  and 
endeavor  after,  new  obedience."  A  true  sense  of  his  sin,  and 
turning  from  it,  with  grief  and  hatred  with  full  purpose  and 
endeavor  after  new  obedience — if  this  does  not  inculcate  un- 
equivocally the  renunciation  of  all  known  sin,  then  to  my 
mind  language  has  lost  its  significance.  No  tent 

is  converted  and  every  penintent  renounces  his  former  life 
of  sin. 

Now,  if  polygamy  is  a  SID,  as  the  ad  interim  committee  and 
the  Synod  of  Virginia  and  the  con.-titution  of  the  church 
founded  on  the  word  of  God  declare  it  to  be,  and  as  it  is 
in  fact,  then  this  renunciation  of  repentance,  as  a  prerequ 
of  admission  to  baptism,  would  sweep  this  polygamy  away 
and  the  applicant  would  have  none  of  it  left  on  his  back  nor 
in  his  heart  to  carry  into  the  church  with  him. 

But  it  should  at  once  be  noted  that  the  criterion  of  known 
sin  is  not  the  intelligence  of  the  candidate,  who  hitherto 
may  have  been  an  ignorant  heathen  with  blunted  moral 
sensibilities  and  blurred  spiritual  vision,  but  the  intelligence 
of  the  Christian  missionary,  pastor,  or  teacher.  If  the  heathen 
man  or  woman  has  been  led  to  see  and  accept  Jesus  Christ 
as  a  Savior  from  sin,  then  this  sin  mint  stand  out  as  an  oc- 
casion of  grief  and  an  object  of  hatred.  The  delinquency  of 
that  spiritual  guide,  if  the  mind  of  such  an  one  has  not 


155 

been  thus  taught  to  see  the  sin  of  lying,  of  licentiousness, 
adultery,  drunkenness,  gambling,  and  of  polygamy — all  are 
classed  together — must  be  of  the  most  aggravated  and  cul- 
pable type.  But  how  can  any  one  who  holds  that  polygamy 
need  not  be  renounced,  but  may  be  taken  into  the  church, 
be  other  than  a  blind  leader  of  the  blind,  both  of  whom  must 
fall  into  the  ditch  and  defile  the  church? 

Time  is  not  of  the  essence  of  some  contracts,  and  it  is  not 
of  this  procedure.  It  matters  not  how  short  a  time  before- 
hand the  light  of  the  gospel  may  have  illumined  the  mind  of 
the  heathen  polygamist  to  see  his  sin,  the  time  for  renuncia- 
tion and  avowed  entrance  on  a  new  life  is  before  baptism, 
and  not  after  it,  before  entering  the  church,  or  its  seats  may 
be  filled  with  godless  impenitents.  The  heathen  does  not 
enter  the  church  in  heathen  darkness,  nor  in  the  twilight  of 
the  old  dispensation,  but  in  the  bright  sunshine  of  the  new. 
The  present  missionary  is  a  teacher,  and  not  a  proselyter. 

I  shall  never  recover  from  the  amazement  which  I  ex- 
perienced when  Dr.  Ramsay,  president  of  King's  College, 
Tennessee,  a  member  of  the  Synod  of  Virginia,  took  the  ros- 
trum and  argued  that  the  renunciation  of  all  known  sin,  as 
a  preliminary  or  condition  of  admission  to  baptism  and 
church  membership,  would  wreck  our  mission  churches!  I 
arose  in  my  place,  and,  with  the  privilege,  asked  him  if  he 
would  receive  into  the  church  any  one  who  refused  to  re- 
nounce all  known  sin?  He  did  not  even  qualify  his  position. 
But  it  was  extended  to  home  churches  as  well.  And  this  sur- 
prise was  intensified  when  an  ex-Moderator  of  the  General 
Assembly,  Dr.  Hopkins,  endorsed  Dr.  Ramsay's  position. 
I  have  hesitated  to  give  the  names,  but  think  it  best  to  do  so. 
My  memory  and  understanding  are  confirmed  by  others. 


156 

Whilst  there  is  no  possibility  of  these  brethren  satisfactorily 
defending  themselves,  do  they  not  owe  the  church  a  dis- 
claimer? 

This  novel  occurrence  was  just  before  the  vote  on  the  over- 
ture, when  79  voted  for  the  admission  and  tolerance 
polygamy  in  the  church  to  14  against  it.     If  the  he 
taught,  as  he  should  be,  that  the  scripture  condemns  polyg- 
amy as  a  sin,  then  he  knows  it  to  be  a  sin,  and  the  renuncia- 
tion of  all  known  sin  would  sweep  it  out  of  his  life.     Nor  is 
it  possible  to  find  any  room  fur  ii  in  the  new  life.— nor  for 
polyandria,  a  kindred  sin. 

Said  Dr.  Gust,  in  the  1888  Conference,  vol.  2:  59: 

"Marriage  is  the  type  of  the  union  of  Christ   with   IIi> 
church,  and  the  relation  of  the  sexes  is  the  touchstone  of  the 
purity  of  the  church.     If  once  you  allow  polygan 
church,  away  with  its  purity."     Said  another:  "If  we  br 
polygamy  into  our  churches,  we  shall  never  get  rid  of  it" 
(p.  75). 

I  am  able  to  mention  a  case  where  a  mission  churc! 
rid  itself  of  polygamy,  and  it  is  a  very  instructive  case      1 
learn  of  it  from  Herbert  Kirby,  M.  I'..  fW  three  years  a 
medical  missionary  on  the  lower  Congo,  two  hundred  miles* 
above  its  mouth.     This  Eapt  m  has  eight  stations  and 

5,000  communicants.  Rev.  Henry  Richards  started  the  work 
in  187*9.  At  first  men  were  admitted  with  what  wives  they 
hod,  but  were  not  allowed  to  take  any  more,  the  same  course 
is  now  pursued  at  Luebo.  After  a  dozen  years,  on  this  basis, 
the  church  was  disbanded  and  an  entirely  new  start  was 
made,  on  the  strict  basis  of  monogamy  and  abstinence  from 
palm  wine.  The  people  promptly  accepted  the  monogamou.-* 
condition,  rejoined  the  church,  and  are  now  watchful  of  it 
and  prosperous.  During  the  past  year  one  of  the  teachers 


157 

gave  reason  to  the  natives  to  believe  that  he  had  secretly  de- 
parted from  it,  and  he  was  expelled. 

This  Baptist  mission  on  the  Congo  is  a  thousand  miles 
from  our  Presbyterian  mission  on  the  Kassai;  and  it  seems 
clear  to  me  that  it  would  be  well  for  Luebo  to  follow  the  noble 
example  it  has  set,  and  make  a  fresh  start,  if  need  be,  to  get 
rid  of  the  blotch  of  polygamy ;  and  it  is  probable  that,  on  the 
reorganization,  very  few  would  be  lost  in  numbers,  and  great 
spiritual  gain  would,  as  in  that  case,  result.  No  doubt  some 
of  the  present  polygamous  members  would  renounce  it  in 
order  to  be  right  and  reassociated  in  the  church  on  a  sinless 
basis. 

It  may  be  restated  that  relatively  the  number  of  the  polyg- 
amists  in  any  community  is  a  scanty  few.  The  great  mass 
of  the  people  are  poor  and  monogamous.  Those  who  have 
plural  wives  are  the  well-to-do,  or  rich.  Even  in  the  Bible, 
plural  families  are  named  only  in  connection  with  the  rich, 
as  Abraham,  Ishmael,  Jacob,  several  kngs;  and  it  is  con- 
fessed that  this  aristocratic  feature  of  polygamy  has  unfor- 
tunately a  tempting  influence  on  missionaries. 

Mrs.  W.  M.  Baird,  a  Presbyterian  missionary  in  Korea, 
in  attendance  on  the  Missionary  Conference,  1900,  lifts  the 
veil  from  the  experience  of  a  missionary  life-  thus : 

" Sometimes  when  years  of  faithful  effort  have  been 
put  in,  with  little  or  no  results  in  broken  hearts  or 
changed  lives,  a  sore  temptation  conies  to  the  mission- 
ary. He  feels  that  the  church  at  home,  whose  agent 
he  is,  is  watching  him  with  impatient  eyes,  and  won- 
dering why  his  reports  year  after  year  continue  to 
show  little  but  hopes  and  anticipations. 

"He  sees  natives  around  him,  friendly  and  mildly 
interested,  yet  clinging  tenaciously  to  their  heathen 


168 

customs  and  beliefs,  and  a  strong  temptation  comes 
to  him  to  make  it  easier  for  them  to  become  Chri- 
by  letting  down  the  requirements  of  the  gospel.  He 
begins  to  think  that  Sabbath  attendance  at  the  neigh- 
borhood fair,  either  as  purchaser  or  vender,  is  perhaps 
not  to  be  absolutely  prohibited,  since  the  natives  com- 
plain that  not  to  go  would  subject  them  to  serious  in- 
convenience and  financial  loss.  A  compromise,  of 
church  in  the  morning  and  fair  in  the  afternoon, 
begins  to  seem  to  him  not  altogether  unreasonable. 
Or,  here  is  a  man  who  manifests  his  willingness  to  be- 
come a  Christian  if  he  can  do  so  without  disturbing 
his  domestic  relations,  which  happen  to  be  plural. 
He  is  a  leading  man  in  the  community,  and 

;iry  feels  that  if  he  can  secure  him,  numbers  of 
the  other  villagers  will  follow.  He  begins  to  revolve 
the  matter  in  his  mind  with  a  view  to  letting  him  in. 
Plausible  reasons  speedily  suggest  themselves.  David 
and  Solomon  had  concubines,  and  the  Lord  winked 
at  the  matter.  This  man  had  assumed  these  respon- 
sibilities in  the  days  of  his  ignorance;  was  he  war- 
ranted in  denying  them  now?  It  would  mean  a 
great  tearing  up  of  the  man's  household;  the 
sionary  knows  and  likes  him,  and  feels  disinclined  to 
impose  hard  conditions  upon  him.  He  losts  sight 
of  the  fact  that  the  option  of  making  conditions  was 
not  left  with  him,  and  so  it  comes  to  pass  that  the 
gospel  is  conformed  to  the  heathen,  instead  of  the 
heathen  to  the  gospel,  and  by  and  by  w«-  h ,i\v  the 
spectacle  presented  of  a  native  church  made  up  of 
Sabbath-breakers  and  adulterers. 

"Better  a  thousand  times  the  unbroken  regions  of 
darkness  than  such  baptized  heathenism,  as  this.  Bet- 
ter long  years  of  fruitless  labor  than  such  sadly  un- 
christian results.  No  appearance  of  prosperity,  how- 
ever flattering,  can  atone  for  such  a  sacrifice  of  prin- 


159 

ciple.  It  is  easier  to  keep  out  than  to  put  out,  and 
when  it  comes  to  admitting  members  into  the  church, 
a  missionary  can  not  afford  to  present  other  than  an 
uncompromising  front  to  the  various  forms  of  evil 
that  show  themselves,  no  matter  how  firmly  rooted,  in 
a  heathen  community." 

XIV. 
HARMONY  OF  OVERTURE  WITH  MISSION  WORK. 

7.  I  propose  now  chiefly  to  gather  helpful  information 
from  the  deliverances  in  these  councils  respecting  certain 
missions  which  have  been  and  are  still  conducted  on  the 
monogamous  principle  of  the  Overture,  baptizing  only  such 
as  renounce  polygamy — thus  excluding  polygamy  from  the 
church.  I  have  already  mentioned  the  interesting  Baptist 
mission  on  the  lower  Congo.  I  am  told  (by  Dr.  Kirby)  that 
there  are  English  Methodist  and  Swedish  missions  on  the 
upper  Congo  pursuing  the  same  course.  But  if  we  look 
at  South  Africa,  missionaries  have  been  laboring  on  this  plan 
among  the  Hottentots,  the  Koramas,  and  the  Bushmen  for 
more  than  a  hundred  years.  These  were  amongst  the  most 
degraded  peoples.  "I  am  not  aware,"  says  Rev.  John  Mac- 
kenzie, "I  am  not  aware  that  human  language  could  depict 
a  more  degraded  people  than  the  missionaries  found  them  to 
be  at  the  beginning  of  the  last  century.  But  now  they  are 
clothed  and  in  their  right  mind.  They  are  now  'fulfilling 
the  duties  of  citizens  in  Cape  Colony — and  the  offices  of  good 
subjects  and  good  Christians  and  taking  part  in  the  manage- 
ment of  native  churches/ J  The  gospel  was  taken  into 
Bechuanaland  by  Robert  Moffit,  followed  by  Livingstone. 
From  the  first  it  has  been  monogamous.  In  their  polyg- 
amous state  several  so-called  wives  have  their  separate  es- 


160 

tablishment;-  or  hnn«»'s  like  the  Mormons.     There  is  only 
true  wife,  and  his  taking  other  wives  marks  his  increase  in 
wealth.     When  the  polygamy  is  renounced  in  becoming  a 
Christian,  neither  the  woman  nor  the  children  lose  caste. 

"The  new  doctrine,"  we  are  told,  "would  have  no  chance 
whatever  there  as  public  opinion  is  already  formed  against 
it.  The  vast  plains  and  plateaux,  the  chief  home  of  these 
people,  are  four  to  five  thousand  feet  above  the  sea  level,  and 
hence  it  is  one  of  the  healthiest  countries  of  the  world.  The 
missionary  from  this  people  in  the  1888  conference  re- 
marked: "Polygamists  showing  interest  in  Christianity 
should  he  helped  in  every  way,  and  treated  with  considera- 
tion and  patience.  But  their  place  was  the  Catechumen's 
class;  the  water  of  baptism  did  not  belong  to  them"  (vol.  2: 
80). 

'/A    I A    I    \ 

Another  strong  witness  for  monogamous  and  anti-polyg- 
amous missions  is  found  in  the  Zululand,  an  interesting 
province  of  Natal,  Southeast  Africa,  The  American  Board 
of  C.  F.  M..  instituted  this  mission  in  1835 — over,  sevt 
years  ago.  It  is  one  of  the  most  successful  missions  of  that 
great  missionary  organization.  At  the  very  outset  intoler- 
ance of  polygamy  was  its  rule.  Men  separated  from  their 
wives, and  then  publicly  married  to  the  true  wife  in  a  Ch Ti- 
tian way.  Bishop  Colenso  lent  his  influence  against  the 
American  missionaries  who  adopted  this  rule  ami  favored 
toleration  of  polygamy  in  the  church ;  but  at  the  end  of  the 
conflict  in  1855,  twenty  years  after  the  opening  of  the  mis- 
sion, the  practice  of  intolerance  was  more  firmly  established 
than  ever. 

This  Zulu  case  is  too  important  to  be  dismissed  without 


161 

further  notice.  I  will  submit/  therefore,  the  letter  of  Dr. 
Smith,  the  Secretary  of  this  Board,  and  some  extracts  from 
the  report  to  which  it  refers. 

"BOSTON,  MASS.,  Oct.  20,  1904. 
"REV.  DR.  S.  S.  LAWS,  Martinsburg,  West  Virginia. 

"My  DEAR  DR.  LAWS  :  I  have  just  received  a  letter 
from  Dr.  Gates,  of  Washington,  D.  C.,  making  in- 
quiry in  your  behalf  as  to  the  usage  of  the  American 
Board  in  the  case  of  persons  in  the  polygamous  state 
who  are  converted  to  Christianity.  Our  usage  is  quite 
uniform  not  to  receive  such  men  into  church  mem- 
bership until  their  polygamous  relation  is  corrected. 
The  usage  may  not  be  absolutely  uniform.  Circum- 
stances are  sometimes  taken  into  the  account  when  a 
particular  adjustment  is  made.  We  meet  this  ques- 
tion most  commonly  in  our  missions  in  Africa,  and 
last  year  we  sent  a  deputation  to  Africa  that  made  a 
reply  to  inquiries  on  this  subject  to  the  pastors  and 
delegates  of  the  African  Congregational  Church  in 
Natal.  I  send  you  a  copy  of  the  report  of  this  deputa- 
tion, and  you  will  find  this  letter  on  pages  59-60. 
This  letter  expresses  the  matter  according  to  the 
usage  of  the  Board,  and  I  understand  its  terms  are 
entirely  approved  by  those  to  whom  it  is  addressed. 
"I  am,  faithfully  yours, 

"JUDSON  SMITH/' 


"That  this  topic  should  persistently  thrust  itself  upon  the 
consideration  of  the  churches  of  the  Zulu  Mission  will  not 
be  thought  strange  by  those  who  understand  the  situation 
and  who  measure  aright  the  strength  of  social  customs  and 
complications  growing  out  of  these  social  relations.  From 
the  begining  of  the  mission,  the  wrongfulness  of  polygamy 


162 

has  been  insisted  upon,  and  Admitted  by  all  the  churches. 
Any  church  member  contracting  a  plural  marriage  would  be 
at  once  set  aside,  not  by  the  missionaries  but  by  his  own 
church.  But  there  are  cases  in  which  persons  who  are  be- 
lieved to  be  true  Christians  are  held  by  marriage  vows  and  by 
native  law  from  which  there  is  no  escape.  Especially  are 
wives  who  have  children  sometimes  held  in  a  bondage  most 
trying  to  them.  Shall  they  be  excluded  from  the  church 
because  of  a  relationship  from  which  they  would  gladly  be 
free?  Advice  on  this  matter  was  repeatedly  sought  of  the 
deputation  by  pastors  and  church  members,  and  a  reply  was 
greatly  desired. 

"REPLY  TO  INQUIRIES  PRESENTED  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF 
POI. 

"INANDA,  July  22,  1903. 

"To  the  Pastors  and  Delegates  of  th*  /  Congre- 

gational Church. 

"DEAR  BRETHREN  :  You  have  asked  for  our  views 
on  the  subject  of  polygamy,  as  to  which  there  is  some 
difference  of  opinion  among  you.  We  understand 
that  there  is  entire  agreement  in  the  judgment  that 
any  person  who  contracts  a  plural  marriage  after 
uniting  with  the  church  should  be  at  once  removed. 
We  understand  also  that  there  are  comparatively  few 
who  would  admit  to  membership  a  man  who  still  re- 
tains more  than  one  wife.  The  principal  question  re- 
lates to  the  reception  of  women  who  have  become 
Christians  after  they  were  married  to  a  man  who  has 
other  wives  living  and  from  whom  it  is  difficult,  if  not 
impossible,  for  them  to  separate.  Their  situation  is 
most  trying.  If  the  man  refuses  to  let  them  go  they 
are  held  by  the  native  law.  If  they  break  away  they 


163 

must  leave  their  children,  and  become  practically  out- 
casts in  life.  Such  women  who  become  Christians 
are  entitled  to  sincerest  sympathy  and  tender  care. 
Shall  they  be  admitted  to  the  church? 

"You  have  asked  our  judgment  on  this  matter.  Let 
it  be  clearly  understood  that  the  deputation  has  no 
authority  to  pass  judgment  on  this  question.  The 
American  Board,  which  has  sent  us,  does  not  wish  to 
govern  the  churches,  and  has  delegated  to  us  no 
authority  to  pass  upon  points  like  this.  We  are  not 
empowered  to  .speak  for  the  Board  on  the  matter  of 
polygamy.  But  the  deputation  is  at  liberty  to  express 
its  judgments  and  we  see  no  reason  why  we  should  not 
give  to  you  our  opinion  on  the  subject.  We,  therefore, 
reply  that  it  is  our  judgment,  all  things  considered, 
that  it  is  not  expedient  to  change  the  practice  as  to 
receiving  polygamists  which  has  hitherto  prevailed 
among  all  Zulu  churches.  The  stand  which  these 
churches  have  taken  against  this  terrible  evil  is  one 
of  the  potent  influences  for  the  overthrow  of  the 
custom.  The  Zulu  people  can  never  take  the  place 
they  are  capable  of  taking  until  polygamy  is  over- 
thrown and  the  family,  as  Christ  defines  it,  is  es- 
tablished among  them.  Anything  that  affects  the 
family  unfavorably  injures  the  whole  religious  and 
social  life  of  the  people.  Doubtless  all  Christians 
agree  in  this.  And  it  is,  in  our  opinion,  almost  in- 
evitable that  the  protest  which  these  churches  have 
made,  and  should  make,  against  polygamy,  would 
be  obscured  and  seriously  weakened  if  there  should  be 
any  relaxation  in  the  practice  of  excluding  from  ad- 
mission to  church  membership  those  who  are  in 
polygamous  relations.  Such  exclusion  does  not  bar 
any  true  Christian  from  heaven.  It  should  certainly 
call  for  every  comfort  and  help  to  be  given  to  one 
thus  bound  in  heavy  chains.  But  the  gain  to  such  a 


164 

person  if  received  would  be  greatly  counterbalanced 
by  the  loss  to  the  many,  if  the  testimony  of  these 
churches  as  to  the  divine  law  of  one  man  and  one  wife 
were  obscured  in  the  thought  of  the  people.  A 
church,  for  its  own  preservation,  must  at  times  refuse 
to  receive  one  who,  though  a  Christian,  would  be  a 
disturbing  element  in  it.  And  it  seems  to  us  that 
the  presence  of  polygamist*  in  any  church  could  not 
fail  to  result  unfavorably  to  its  peace  and  welfare  and 
efficiency. 

"We  should  be  sorry  to  see  the  Zulu  churches  break- 
ing from  the  stand  they  have  hitherto  taken  and 
should  fear  that  it  would  lead  to  looseness  in  other 
ways.  We  are, 

"Your  brothers  in  Christ, 
(Signed)  "E.  E.  STR<> 

"SYDNEY  STRONG." 

At  Clifton  Springs,  N.  Y.,  summer  of  1905, 1  learned  from 
Miss  Clark,  a  missionary  "t"  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M..  amonu  the 
Zulus  for  seven  years,  that  the  native  pastors  and  people  are 
more  united  and  firm  in  their  opposition  to  polygamy  than 
are  the  foreigners.  Secretary  Smith  assured  mo  «.f  the  per- 
fect reliableness  of  Miss  Clark's  views. 

Here,  then,  is  one  of  the  most  successful  and  venerable  of 
the  missions  of  t lie  American  Bo  h  ha.-  he.-n  hnir 

to  an  enviable  position  of  autonomy  <m  the  anti-pnlynamv 
scriptural  theory  of  this  overture,  whose  peace,  purity,  and 
future  are  now  imperiled  by  the  erratic  course  of  white  men. 
A  Rev.  James  Scott,  of  Scotland,  related  in  the  1888  Cen- 
tenary Convention  how  he  had,  on  the  advice  of  his  AV 
broken  over  the  conservative  stand  of  these  natives,  after  he 
ceased  to  be  a  drummer,  or  commercial  man,"  amoiiLi  the 
Zulu  Kafirs,  and  became  a  missionary,  and  then  proclaimed 


165 

it  as  the  doctrine  he  was  advocating  that  "The  refusal  to 
receive  polygamists  into  the  church  of  Christ  is  a  great 
hindrance  to  the  gospel  among  the  Zulus,  and  that  the  polyg- 
amist  family  should  come  in  as  one"  (vol.  2:  71). 

I  confess  that  I  look  on  such  a  missionary  as  a  calamity. 
More  than  fifty  years  ago  the  American  Board  mission- 
aries successfully  resisted  Bishop  Colenso's  latitudinarian 
effort  to  maintain  in  the  Natal  churches  the  tolerance  of 
polygamy.  Yet  this  Rev.  Mr.  Scott  concedes  that  there  is  no 
tolerance  due  to  concubinage.  But  it  cannot  be  successfully 
controverted  that  always  and  everywhere  so-called  polygamy 
is  concubinage  and  adultery. 

Bishop  CROWTHER,  D.  D.,  native  African,  "Church  Mis- 
sionary Society  of  the  Niger": 

Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen — The  matter 
before  this  meeting  is  one  of  very  great  importance, 
and  it  is  one  which  ought  to  be  looked  at  and  judged 
from  a  scriptural  point  of  view.  If  we  go  to  consult 
the  feelings  of  this  tribe  and  that  tribe,  of  this  or  that 
nation,  and  leave  the  Word  of  God  behind,  we  shall 
err.  We  may  as  well  save  all  the  people  who  are 
worshiping  imaginary  gods  instead  of  the  one  only 
true  God.  My  opinion,  and  the  opinion  of  the  women 
in  my  own  country,  is  that  polygamy  is  a  misery  to 
mankind.  You  consult  men's  feelings,  but  you  do 
not  consult  the  women's.  Now  I  will  just  give  you 
some  information  about  the  state  of  things  in  Africa 
where  I  come  from.  Whoever  has  witnessed  this  life 
of  polygamy  would  never  venture  to  support  or  com- 
mend its  being  continued  at  all.  It  is  an  evil.  Sup- 
posing a  man  gets  married  to  one  wife,  and  then  he 
marries  another,  and  another,  until  he  has  five,  seven, 
or  ten  wives.  When  he  becomes  converted  he  is  re- 


166 

ceived  only  with  one  wife,  but  the  others  must  be  put 
away.  And  we  have  witnessed  in  the  heart  of  the 
country,  where  we  missionaries  go,  that  where  there 
are  illegitimate  children  born  there  is  a  great  deal  of 
heart-burning  between  the  husband  and  the  women. 
This  is  a  fact.  And  why?  Man  was  not  made  to 
have  so  many  wives  in  the  house.  //  you  understood 
the  secret  of  the  thing  you  would  never  an' 
man  having  more  than  one  wife. 

Another  thing  I  must  tell  you  is  this :  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  wives  of  these  polygamists  are  not  fed  by 
husbands.  The  women   have   to  provide  for  them- 
selves.    You  have  only  to  go  to  New  Calabar  to  find 
these  poor  women,  the  wives  of  chiefs — these  polyga- 
mists— being  obliged  to  take  axes  and  go  int 
ests  either  to  cut  wood  or  to  make  a  fence ;  to  cut  bam- 
boo poles,  to  thatch  houses,  while  others  again — I  am 
talking  of  the  women — have  to  go  out  in  their  canoes 
to  fish,  and  one  or  two  may  have  a  little  baby  on 
backs.     They  have  to  paddle  out  and  -h  to 

support  themselves  and  tluir  husbands.  Nov 
such  a  state  of  things  as  that  to  be  advocated?  My 
.  dear  friends,  I  am  just  telling  you  all  this  that  you 
may  see  what  is  the  state  of  things.  Well,  under  the 
circumstances  1  have  mentioned,  the  wives  of  polyga- 
mists, having  children,  are  not  fed  by  the  husbands, 
neither  are  the  children.  The  children  are  not  taken 
care  of  by  the  husband  at  all. 

Before  I  sit  down,  I  would  ask  whether,  if  the  hus- 
band dies,  you  think  these  women  live  ever  afterwards 
in  misery?  No:  before  many  months  you  find  each 
of  them  will  get  a  husband. 

A  MEMBER:  May  I,  for  the  information  of  this 
Conference,  be  permitted  to  ask  Bishop  Crowther  a 
very  important  question? 

The  CHAIRMAN  :  Yes. 


167 

The  MEMBER  :  Will  you  tell  us,  please,  whether,  in 
the  case  of  a  native  chief  having  more  than  one  wife, 
having  married  them  as  a  heathen,  if  he  becomes  a 
Christian,  would  you  Compel  him  to  put  aside  all  but 
the  one  wife  before  he  is  baptized?  and  whether,  on 
the  other  hand,  when  one  of  the  wives  becomes  a 
Christian  first,  you  would  baptize  and  receive  into  the 
fellowship  of  the  church  such  a  woman,  she  being  the 
wife  of  a  heathen  husband,  and  being  one  of  many 
wives?  (Conf.  1888,  vol  2 :  72.) 

In  brief. — The  answer  was  uncompromising  for  the  men, 
even  chiefs,  but  relaxed  for  the  women.  The  Zulus  deny  the 
plural  life  to  the  women  the  same  as  to  the  men. 

Rev.  J.  A.  TAYLOR,  1888,  colored  (Baptist  Foreign  Mis- 
sionary from  Convention  of  U.  S.  A.) : 

I  think  if  we  kept  pace  with  the  New  Testament 
scripture  we  should  have  no  difficulty  in  finding  how 
to  decide  this  question.  Let  the  teaching  of  the  Son 
of  God  be  our  guide,  and  we  shall  always  keep  right. 
I  fear  that  sometimes  we  let  our  zeal  run  away  with 
our  best  judgment  in  this  matter. 

The  very  first  difficulty  that  met  our  society,  some 
eight  years  ago,  when  they  opened  the  Mission  Station 
in  West  Central  Africa,  was  this  very  question,  as  to 
whether  we  should  admit  polygamists  into  our 
churches.  Having  suffered  to  a  great  extent  in  the 
United  States  from  the  allowance  of  this  kind  of 
thing  we  met,  and  decided  emphatically,  "No;  the 
gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  did  not  allow  polygamy  in  His 
church/'  And  I  feel  so  today,  and  whatever  you 
may  decide  for  India  or  Africa,  I  am  here  to  appeal 
to  you  in  the  interests  of  millions  of  colored  people  in 
America  who  have  a  deep  interest  in  the  evangeliza- 
tion of  Africa.  I  say  for  God's  sake  do  not  make 


such  a  provision  for  Africa  as  to  allow  polygamists 
into  the  church.  We  do  not  want  it.  The  Africans 
themselves  do  not  want  it. 

Our  principle  of  mi  — ionary  work  i>  ba.-«-<l  on  this, 
that  it  is  better  to  have  a  few  firm  Ch-  with 

clean  moral  principles,  who  will  hold  up  the  light  of 
the  gospel  of  the  Son  of  God,  than  to  have  a  multitude 
who  have  sin  mixed  up  in  them.  Let  me  tell  you 
that  if  we  want  to  convert  the  world  to  Christ,  if  we 
want  a  church  that  will  shine  01;  -  tin-  -un 

and  as  fair  as  the  moon,  and  be  a<  terrible  as  an  army 
with  banners,"  again-t  CY.TY  .-in.  that  church  must 
be  purged  from  sin,  and  polygamy  is  one  of  \\n- 
and  most  demoralizing  of  -ins.  May  I  ask  that 
whatever  you  may  decid*  for  India  or  for  China,  do 
not  make  any  provision  hat  dear  old 

country  which  I  love,  to  admit  polygamies  into  tho 
church  of  Jesus  Christ.  <  r.mf.  1888,  vol.  2 

Rev.   A.   MKRE.N  "nary 

Society  (Ibid.,  »i" 

Brothers  and  Sisters — 1  IIP:  "ur  forbearance 

because  I  am  not  well  versed  in  th«   l-^.-'.i-h  language. 
But  if  it  is  not  possible  for  me  to  brinu  pleasing  u 
before  you,  I  hope  I  shall  be  able  to  tell  you  some  en- 
couraging facts  with  regard  to  missionary  work  and 
the  treatment  of  polygamy  in  Africa.     In  Africa  the 
treatment  of  polygamy  is  a  burnini:  que-tinn.    Polyg- 
amy is  the  greatest  obstacle  to  the  spread  of  Chri* 
ity  among  the  Afri<  x.  and  very  <>tVn  younger 

brothers  coming  to  the  new  countries  n>  '1  th.-  fresh 
tribes  are  perhaps  inclined  to  have  too  little  courage 
with  regard  to  this  great  obstacle.  It  is  like  a  moun- 
tain before  us,  but  we  know  that  even  mountains  may 
be  removed  by  the  power  of  Christian  faith ;  and  so  it 


169 

is  with  polygamy  in  Africa.  I  have  baptized  in 
South  Africa  very  many  who  were  polygamists  before 
their  conversion.  I  have  lived  for  more  than  twenty 
years  among  the  tribes  of  the  interior  and  Transvaal, 
and  I  have  had  to  deal  with  this  question.  I  am  glad 
to  say  that  on  this  subject  there  is  almost  complete 
unanimity  between  all  the  missionary  societies  of 
South  Africa,  and  the  system  of  toleration  in  regard 
to  polygamy  /'*-.  as  far  as  I  know,  entirely  done  away 
with. 

Where  the  Spirit  of  God  is  working  upon  the  hearts 
of  the  natives  I  cannot  see  that  there  i-  any  difficulty 
in  treating  this  question.  When  a  polygaraist  came 
to  us  asking  to  be  received  into  instruction,  he  often 
asked,  "How  about  the  women?"  And  I  said,  "Do 
not  trouble  yourself  about  that;  come  and  hear  the 
Word  of  God.  You  have  no  power  in  yourself  to  deal 
with  this  question  before  you  are  a  really  converted 
man,  a  true  follower,  willing  to  follow  Christ;  you 
must  follow  Christ,  and  I  will  instruct  you  if  you 
come."  Month  after  month  passed  by,  arid  when  the 
time  for  baptism  arrived  we  selected  some  of  those 
who  were  perhaps  ready  for  it;  then  most  of  them 
came  and  said,  "This  matter  is  regulated  already;  it 
is  all  right ;  I  have  given  my  wives  back  to  their  par- 
ents." We  have  not  tried  to  press  that  upon  such 
men ;  but  it  has  been  simply  the  effect  of  other  Chris- 
tians upon  them,  and  the  effect  of  the  Word  of  God. 
Therefore  we  have  found  that  the  question  was  not  so 
difficult  its  we  thought  before.  Veiy  often  those  na- 
tive "wives"  are  young  girls  five  or  six  j^ears  old,  and 
when  they  are  sent  back  their  parents  receive  them 
with  joy,  because  they  think  they  can  sell  them  again 
and  get  more  cattle  for  them. 


170 

'{OPEAN  MOVEMENT. 
"BUREAU  OF  MISSIONS,  BIBLE  HOUSE, 

"NEW  YORK,  February  8,  1906. 
"REV.  S.  S.  LAWS,  D.  !>.. 

"1733  Q  St.,  Northwest,  Washington,  D.  C. 

"DEAR  SIR  :  Your  favor  of  February  2d  is  received 
enclosing  clipping  respecting  the  polygamy  overture. 
I  am  glad  to  get  it,  and  shall  be  glad  to  see  the 
minutes  of  the  Synod  when  they  are  ready. 

"The  movement  for  independence  among  the  na- 
tive churches  is,  as  you  know,  especially  marked  in 
South  Africa  where  the  African  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  of  America  has  had  a  good  deal  to  do  with 
what  is  known  as  'the  Ethiopian  movement/ 

"I  have  just  received  a  curious  impression  of  this 
movement  from  the  monthly  bulletin  of  the  Swiss 
Missionary  Society  working  in  the  Zulu  territory  on 
the  southern  borders  of  Portuguese  East  Africa.  The 
view  which  these  good  people  give  of  the  effects  of  the 
Ethiopian  movement  among  the  churches  founded  by 
the  American  Board  of  Boston  is  very  suggestive,  and 
I  enclose  to  you  a  translation  of  the  essential  parts  of 
the  story.  Of  course  it  may  be  somewhat  colored  by 
the  Swiss  missionary's  point  of  view,  but  after  making 
due  allowances  it  is  worth  reading. 
"Cordially  yours, 

"HENRY  OTIS  DWIGHT." 

INDEPENDENCE  IN  ZULU  CHURCHES. 

(Translated  from  a  letter  of  Rev.  Mr.  C.  Bourquin,  in  the 
Bulletin  of  the  Swiss  Romande  Mission,  January,  1906.) 

Mr.  Wilcox,  of  the  American  Board's  Zulu  Mission,  visited 
the  Swiss  station  of  Matutuene  in  order  to  ask  the  Swiss 
missionary  to  go  with  him  to  the  Board's  outstation  of 


171 

Madladlane,  with  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  a  transfer  of 

the  work  there  to  the  care  of  the  Swiss  mission. 

******* 

The  chairman  of  the  district,  however,  said  that  they  had 
no  need  of  foreigners.  "You  may  come  occasionally  to 
baptize  and  to  perform  marriage  ceremonies.  But  we  can 
get  along  very  well  by  ourselves." 

"This  self-sufficiency,"  continues  Mr.  Bourquin,  "this 
pride,  this  ignorance  of  their  own  needs,  would  be  su- 
premely ridiculous  if  it  were  not  sad  enough  to  bring  tears. 
These  people  five  years  ago  joined  the  Ethiopian  church, 
that  black  church  which  cannot  tolerate  the  control  of  a 
white  missionary.  It  was  heart-breaking  to  see  these  blacks, 
who  owe  to  the  missionary  the  little  which  they  know,  refuse 
the  help  which  we  had  come  to  offer  them.  We  suffered 
something  of  what  Jesus  Christ  suffered  when  He  came  to 
His  own  and  His  own  received  Him  not. 

"The  upshot  of  it  was  that  the  people  refused  to  make  any 
arrangement.  They  did  not  trust  us.  They  told  Mr.  Wilcox 
that  they  were  independent  and  would  carry  on  their  work 
as  they  chose  and  would  extend  their  efforts  into  the  whole 
field  of  the  American  Board  if  they  wished  to  do  so." 

I  may  remark  that  so  strongly  does  the  current  of  mission 
labors  in  Africa  still  move  against  polygamy  in  the  churches, 
that  our  Luebo  patron  of  polygamy  is  virtually  side-tracked. 
It  seems  to  be  agreed  that  monogamy  is  more  easily  enforced 
in  Africa  than  in  some  other  countries — thanks  to  early 
monogamous  missions.  It  is  to  be  deprecated  that  the  influ- 
ence of  our  southern  church  should  falter  in  this  great  move- 
ment for  redeeming  Africa  from  one  of  the  most  terrible 
curses  that  sin  has  inflicted  upon  our  race. 

The  Mohammedans  favor  polygamy,  and  are  supposed  to 
have  introduced  it  into  South  Africa. 


172 
In  Bishop  Heber's  stirring  missionary  hymn 

"From  Greenland's  icy  mountains, 

From  India's  coral  strand, 
Where  Afric's  sunny  fountains 

Roll  down  their  golden  sand: 
From  many  an  ancient  river. 

From  many  a  palmy  plain. 
They  call  us  to  deliver 

Their  land  from  error's  chain." 

CHAPTER  XV. 

JAPAN,  CHIN  \.   \M>  INDIA. 

Japan. — There  is  only  occasion  for  a  glance  at  Japan,  \\ith 
her  50,000,000  population  and  50,000  Christians.  It  is 
hardly  forty  years  since  the  gospel  gained  free  access  to  this 
peculiarly  gifted  people.  It  was  in  1854  that  Commodore 
Perry  opened  the  Bible  on  the  capstan  of  his  vessel  in  a 
Japanese  harbor  and  read  the  100th  Psalm.  It  was  not  till 
that  that  the  door  of  entrance  to  Japan  swung  wide  open  to 
the  nations  of  the  world  and  Japan  ceased  to  be  a  hermit 
nation.  In  Africa  the  aspiration  for  the  Ethiopian  Church, 
or  the  church  of  the  African  continent,  has  been  alluded  to 
as  becoming  more  and  more  pronounced.  But  in  Japan  tin- 
national  aspiration  has  been  realized,  and  the  Christians  of 
Japan  have  leaped  forward  to  a  full  home  organization  and 
independence.  And  to  their  honor,  be  it  said,  polygamy  is 
excluded  from  the  Japanese  church.  And  in  Dr.  Dennis, 
vol.  2,  it  is  said:  "Concubinage,  so  common  as  reported,  has 
been  disgraced  and  forced  into  privacy,  and  lessened  and  dis- 
credited, and  family  life  ennobled."  Is  not  this  too  opti 
mistic? 


173 

i  > 
CHINA. 

China. — We  have  seen  that  the  most  successful  mission 
work  in  Africa  has  been  monogamous  and  anti-polygamous ; 
also  that  the  marvelously  successful  Japanese  mission  is 
anti-polygamous.  The  anti-polygamous  mission  work  in 
China  claims  special  attention  for  its  marked  success  and 
promise.  Indeed,  a  Presbyterian  missionary  who  went  forth 
from  the  District  of  Columbia  Presbytery  fifteen  years  ago, 
addressed  the  Ministerial  Association  of  Washington  in  De- 
cember, 1905.  This  was  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Killie,  located 
at  Paotingfu,  China,  and  he  knew  only  of  monogamous 
mission  service  whilst  in  that  country.  He  did  not  entertain 
the  thought  of  baptizing  polygamists,  nor  had  he  come  into 
association  with  any  who  did.  But  some  further  information 
most  instructive  along  this  line  may  be  gathered  from  the 
report  of  the  Centenary  Conference  of  1888: 

Rev.  W.  MCGREGOR  (English  Presbyterian  Mission, 
Amoy)  : 

1  should  also  like  to  say  a  few  words  upon  this 
question  of  polygamy.  When  our  Lord  reminded 
the  Jews  of  the  original  institution  of  marriage,  I  be- 
lieve He  laid  down  a  rule  which  is  to  be  the  rule  of 
the  Christian  church  in  all  ages.  If  we  are  to  admit 
Christian  polygamy,  I  do  riot  see  how  we  are  to  ex- 
clude Christian  polyandry.  With  regard  to  the  ques- 
tion of  different  rules  for  those  who  are  already  mar- 
ried, my  experience  in  the  mission 017  field  has  led  me 
to  think  that  in  what  we  do  we  must  carry  with  us  the 
consciences  of  our  Christian  converts;  and  I  am  per- 
suaded that  if  we  have  one  rule  for  this  member  and 


174 

another  for  that  member,  we  shall  not  carry  their  con- 
sciences with  us. 

With  regard  to  the  case  of  China,  which  I  know 
best,  I  was  very  much  amazed  to  hear  a  gentleman 
who  has  been  in  China  saying  that  all  the  women 
whom  a  Chinaman  has  in  his  household  are  equally 
wives.  The  Chinese  recognize  simply  one  woman  as 
the  real  wife — one  woman  as  the  mistress  of  the  house- 
hold; there  is  a  second  wife  who  has  quite  a  different 
position  subordinate  to  her.  All  the  others  are  simply 
concubines,  bought  for  so  much  money,  and  they  do 
not  hold  the  position  of  wives  at  all.  The  children, 
whether  they  are  of  the  secondary  wife  or  of  the  con- 
cubines, do  not  address  their  real  mother  as  mother 
in  their  own  family;  they  address  the  mistress  of  the 
household  as  mo>  y  are  all  considered  children 

of  the  mistress  of  the  household,  who  is  considered  to 
be  the  real  wife.  Consequently  I  do  not  think  it  is 
doing  anything  in  the  way  of  breaking  up  a  Chinese 
family,  when  we  insist  if  a  man  is  to  be  received  into 
the  Christian  church,  that  he  shall  make  provision  for 
these  other  women  belonging  to  his  household,  and 
that  he  shall  regard  his  real  wife,  the  mistress  of  the 
household,  as  his  wife,  and  live  with  her  as  his  wife. 
We  have  had  several  cases  of  men  who  have  been  long 
kept  in  the  position  of  catechumens,  not  being  re- 
ceived into  the  church  simply  on  account  of  these 
women  in  the  family.  We  have  had  cases  of  men 
•making  provision  for  these  women,  and  being  ulti- 
mately received  into  the  church.  In  one  case  we 
have  a  native  minister,  a  most  valuable  man  in  con- 
nection with  the  mission,  who  is  the  son  of  such  n 
family.  I  do  not  believe  that  he  would  have  been  in 
the  position  of  an  ordained  Christian  minister  today 
if  we  had  received  the  father  into  the  church  while 
he  had  a  number  of  women  in  his  harem. 


175 

Rev.  G.  SMITH   (English  Presbyterian  Mission,  Swatow, 
China)  : 

I  want  to  say  a  word  as  to  the  subject  of  polygamy 
that  has  been  so  much  spoken  of.  The  subject  is  so 
important,  having  to  do  with  the  family,  and  thus 
having  so  much  to  do  with  the  purity  and  perfectnes8 
of  religion,  that  it  warrants  all  the  attention  we  can 
give  to  it  in  the  time  allotted.  A  good  deal  has  al- 
ready been  said  upon  this  subject,  and  I  will  only 
refer  to  one  or  two  points.  God's  ordinance  is  that 
two  should  be  one  flesh ;  not  three,  not  more  than  two 
but  two,  are  to  become  one  flesh.  This  is  the  funda- 
mental law  of  human  society.  Christ  tells  us  to  go 
back  to  what  was  at  the  beginning,  and  lie  evidently 
means  to  lay  it  down  for  the  regulation  of  His  church 
in  all  time  to  go  back  to  the  original  law.  There  is 
more  grace  now  than  there  was  under  the  old  dispen- 
sation, and  so  a  higher  standard  of  attainment  i^  re- 
quired. Thus,  much  that  was  permitted  under  the 
former  is  not  tolerated  under  the  present  dispensation. 

Then  there  is  another  thing  that  we  must  remem- 
ber. A  great  deal  has  been  said  about  the  hardship 
arising  from  a  man  who  has  more  wives  than  one  put- 
ting some  of  them  away.  But  there  are  many  hard 
things  to  do  in  Christianity.  A  man  is  required  to 
give  up  his  life,  if  need  be,  in  order  to  be  a  Christian ; 
he  is  required  to  pluck  out  his  right  eye,  and  cut  off 
his  right  hand,  and  cut  off  his  right  foot.  This  is  the 
law  of  Christ.  A  great  deal  that  is  sentimental  may 
be  said  against  it;  but  that  is  the  law  of  scripture. 
Then  we  are  to  remember  another  thing.  When 
Christ  calls  us  to  do  anything,  He  always  gives  grace 
to  do  it;  there  is  grace  for  whatever  we  are  called  to 
do,  and  to  do  right  wrongs  no  man.  A  right  thing 
done  in  a  Christian  way  has  no  bad  results.  A  pas- 
sage has  been  quoted  about  a  bishop  being  the  hus- 


176 

band  of  one  wife,  and  it  was  quoted  as  implying  that 
there  might  be  polygamy  in  the  Christian  church. 
Now  I  wish  another  passage  to  be  taken  and  kept  side 
by  side  with  it.  It  is  the  converse  of  it:  The  woman 
is  to  be  the  wife  of  one  husband.  Doe>  that  imply 
polyandry?  Are  you  prepared  to  receive  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  church  a  woman  who  has  several  husbands? 
I  say  it  is  impurity,  and  I  do  not  suppose  that  there  is 
a  Christian  minister  who  would  allow  it.  But  it  \? 
only  the  converse  to  the  other. 

Still  further  from  Rev.  G.  Smith,  of  Swatow,  China: 

I  have  been  a  missionary  for  fully  thirty  years. 
The  church  with  which  I  am  connected  consists  of 
Chinese  converts  and  communicants,  the  latter  num- 
bering three  thousand  five  hundred,  and  with  another 
church  united  wUh  us,  more  than  four  thousand 
ooninmiiirantv  \\V11.  during  all  these  years  the  uni- 
form practice  of  this  church  has  been  to  exclude 
polygamists,  and  this  has  helped  to  maintain  the 
purity  of  the  church,  and  it  is  no  barrier  to  the  con- 
version of  the  Chinese. 

I  must  explain  about  the  Chinaman  and  his  wives. 
There  are  what  are  called  wives,  and  also  concubines, 
and  it  is  the  ambition  of  a  Chinese  mandarin  to'have 
a  wife  from  each  of  the  eighteen  provinces  in  China 
and  as  many  concubines  as  he  can  afford  to  support. 
Polygamy  is  very  common  among  the  higher  circles, 
but  I  venture  to  say  from  my  own  experience  that  a 
man  who  indul^s  in  polygamy  goes  against  the 
f  the  Chinese.  I  have  had  it  pointed  out 
that  a  man.  when  he  became  wealthy  and  took  a 
second  wife,  and  while  he  was  rising  in  the  scale  of 
!th.  was  falling  in  the  scale  of  morality.  I  believe 
that  we  have  the  consciences  of  the  people  on  our 
si »le  when  we  oppose  polygamy.  *  *  * 


177 

I  have  no  sympathy  with  the  appeals  to  the  love  of 
God  to  sanction  polygamy.  I  believe  such  appeals  to 
be  an  utter  misrepresentation  of  Scripture.  God  is  a 
holy  God,  as  well  as  a  God  of  love.  I  was  deeply 
grieved  to  hear  the  sentiments  expressed  by  a  man 
holding  such  a  position  as  Mr.  Hudson  Taylor. 
When  he  told  us  the  story  about  the  woman  who  was 
put  away  by  her  husband,  and  then  suffered  all  the 
hardships  that  she  did,  I  cannot  but  say  that,  as  far 
as  I  can  judge,  the  case  was  mismanaged. 

Let  it  be  always  remembered  that  in  China  there 
is  not  the  slightest  difficulty  for  a  woman  to  get  a 
husband;  the  great  difficulty  is  for  a  man  to  get  a 
wife ;  and  if  a  woman  is  put  away  she  can  get  a  dozen 
men  to  choose  from,  if  she  wish,  without  trouble.  So 
that  it  is  not  a  fair  representation  of  the  thing  to  say: 
She  is  an  outcast  when  put  away.  Her  former  hus- 
band is  still  bound  to  care  for  her  welfare. 

Now,  coming  to  another  point,  we  have  heard  of 
Africa  from  Bishop  Crowder;  we  have  heard  from  the 
Fiji  Islands,  and  from  other  places  how  the  work  has 
been  done.  Polygamy  has  been  banished  from  these 
parts  and  elsewhere,  and  the  church  is  flourishing, 
and  that  shows  that  it  is  practicable.  It  has  been 
found  to  be  successful  for  the  church  becomes  pros- 
perous. 

I  will  remark — 

That  I  have  never  read  of  a  more  successful  mission  work 
as  a  steady  growth  anywhere  than  has  been  given  in  these 
monogamous  and  ;mti -polygamy  narratives.  The  simple 
truth  seems  to  be  that  instead  of  the  rejection  or  renunciation 
of  polygamy  being  an  obstacle  it  wins  the  faith  of  the 
heathen.  It  has  the  winning  power  of  consistency. 

It  might  be  remarked  that  the  substance  of  the  Hudson 


178 

vior  case  m* -ntioned  above,  as  given  by  himself,  is  given 
sub-i  When  he  began  his  work  in  China,  hi 

qur  -f  his  first  converts  to  separate  from  a  second  wife 

and  Ti.     It  was  in  fji< 

and  Taylor  with 

mr-f'5  of  himself  and  of  his  religion  on  ace  mm  of  IHT  1; 
ships,     'I'h..'  ifl  win  !•-.  in  his  r.'Hiiiaiiaircuient  of  the  case  was 
apparent  and  directly  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  our  o 
Tlh-  ill  '    Pte  'It  of  this  err<>r  frag  that  thi- 

:      lor.  was  can 

';is  feet  and  by  no  new  script  it  of 

;-  ha-  lu-onie  til 

mao  \vhnrv  i  <r  missin-  ,i  it 

. 

dence  for  tl;  -tead  of  dealing  vvitli  y  as 

an  MiMituiiniKil  •  to  be  established  in  h'-.-ii In -n 

hinds  tat  ii  -iii«l  nurtured  as  a  per: 

\\itness  and  spon>or  of  the  Christian  faith. 
The  Presbyterian  (.'hinvli  undertakes  th« 
tiafiity  as  the  extension  of  the  organized  f  tin  li 

God. 

(1)  I  repeat  tint   I   In  :   read  of  more  successful 
gospel  :                             a  steady  growth  anywhere  than  is 
given  in  these  narratives.     The  truth  seems  to  be  that  the  re- 
jection or  renunciation  of  polygamy  is  a  help  and  no  real 
obstacle. 

(2)  Some  serious  misconceptions  are  here  rectified  as  to 
the  consequence  of  the  separation  of  a  Chinese  polyganint 
from  his  concubines.     Let  it  be  noted  beyond  dispute,  t 
Chinese  polygamy  so-called  is  a  system  of  concubinage,  for  a 
man  in  China  can  be  lawfully  married  to  only  one  woman 
at  a  time.     His  relation  of  cohabitation  with  other  women 
than  this  wife  is  illicit — it  is  adultery. 


179 

It  is  the  teaching  of  the  Chinese  code  that  "neither  custom 
nor  law  allows  a  Chinese  to  have  more  than  one  legal  wife,  and 
if  he  transgresses  he  would  be  as  promptly  punished  under 
the  code  as  if  convicted  of  bigamy  under  English  law."  ( J.  F. 
Jernigan's  "China  in  Law  and  Commerce.")*  There  is  given 
but  a  single  exception  where  a  Chinese  can  lawfully  have 
two  wives,  and  that  is,  or  seems  to  be,  so  rare  and  exceptional 
that  it  need  hardly  be  named.  It  is  where  a  man,  without  a 
son,  adopts  a  nephew  and  this  nephew  is  then  authorized  to 
marry  a  wife  whose  son  will  represent  the  uncle  and  also  a 
wife  whose  son  will  represent  himself.  By  Chinese  custom 
the  daughter  on  marriage  passes  out  of  her  own  family  into 
that  of  her  husband;  and  hence  a  son  only  can  perpetuate 
the  ancestral  family  worship  (p.  123).  The  extinguishment 
of  this  ancestral  worship  is  the  extinguishment  of  the  family 
name.  Hence  the  expedients  to  avert  it  as  a  calamity.  And 
this  is  the  chief  stay  of  polygamy.  After  signing  the  mar- 
riage contract  and  going  to  the  house  of  her  husband,  he  is 
under  no  compulsion  to  respect  any  wish  of  the  wife;  and 
"she  has  no  right  to  demand  of  him  conjudal  fidelity,  but 
if  she  sins  against  it  she  commits  a  heinous  crime.  (Indeed 
she  is  when  first  married  sometimes  taken  to  a  house  or 
home  already  occupied  by  his  concubines.)  And  if  she  dis- 
obeys her  husband,  he  may  sell  her  to  another  as  a  concu- 
bine" (p.  120).  But  he  may  not  degrade  her  in  his  own 
house.  "There  can  be  but  one  wife  in  the  house,  and  she  is 
the  superior  female  in  rank  and  authority.  The  children 
born  in  such  a  home,  whether  the  children  of  the  legal  wife 

*  The  Manchus  overturned  the  native  Ming  Dynasty  1643,  and  in  1647 
published  a  revised  code,  and  this  work  of  Jernigan  is  that  code  done 
into  English  by  Jernigan,  who  was  United  States  Consul  General  for 
several  years,  and  is  now  practicing  law,  in  Shanghai. 


or  of  the  concubines,  are  considered  the  children  of  the  legal 
wife,  and  they  regard  her  as  their  mother"  (p.  114).  Their 
real  mothers  they  address  as  sisters. 

The  husband  is  permitted  to  choose  his  concubines  from 
females  of  any  grade,  whereas  the  wife  must  be  of  the  > 
rank ;  mid  the  same  is  true  in  Japan.     He  cannot  for* 
woman,  however  low  her  grade,  to  become  a  concubine;  but 
if  willing,  he  may  choose  a  slave,  and  all  the  concubines  are 
of  even  rank  among  themselves"  (p.  114).    The  masses  of 
women  in  China  spend  their  time  in  cooking,  spinning,  weav- 
ing, and  sewing.    The  rich  spend  their  time  in  embroider 
gossip,  and  gambling. 

The  present  Enijuv--   !•  Prin- 

cess ;  and  in  default  of  the  first  wife  of  the  deceased  Emperor 
giving  an  heir  to  the  throne,  she  became  his  second 
She  became  regent,  at  his  death,  and  her  son  on  his  acce- 
proved  to  be  a  great  -intim-nt ;  and  on  his  conseq 

death,  the  reins  fell  back  into  her  hands,  where  tin -y  >till.  in 
fact,  remain. 

Marco  Polo   (p.  63),  in  the  13th  century,  writes  that 
the  Emperor  Kublni  Khan  had  four  wives  and  a  great  num- 
ber of  concubines.    Each  wife  was  by  name  styled  Empress, 
and  had  her  court  of  thousands.    "But  during  the  time  01 
later  Emperors    *    *    *    but  one  wife,  who  is  the  Empress, 
is  allowed  the  Emperor;  but  the  practice  of  having  coiu-u 
bines  is  not  disallowed"  (p.  63). 

These  extracts  and  statements  are  given  as  plainly  in- 
dicating that  the  Chinese  are  by  law  a  monogamous  people, 
just  as  were  the  Graeco-Roman  peoples,  and  also  that  their  so- 
called  polygamy  is  alike  a  system  of  illicit  concubinage.  And 
polygamy  is  a  misnomer  of  the  relation  of  the  man  to  them 


181 

concubines  for  he  is  not  married  to  any  of  them,  but  merely 
indulges  a  loose  and  licentious  intercourse  with  them  as  their 
paramour.  They  differ  little  from  and  are  inferior  to  the 
Greek  disreputable  heta?ra3,  but  are  unlike  the  public  harlots 
or  whores  in  that  they  are  supposed  to  be  the  illicit  mistresses 
of  single  instead  of  miscellaneous  paramours.  The  usual 
accounts  given  us  of  these  concubines  as  wives  are  mislead- 
ing; a  separation  from  them  is  separation  from  lawless  mis- 
tnvst--  and  consorts  in  adultery — it  is  not  a  divorce. 

(3)  This  simultaneous  so-called  polygamy  is  the  exact 
converse  of  polyandria.  whatever  extenuation  may  be  pleaded 
on  the  score  of  ancestral  worship ;  and  morally,  or  rather  im- 
morally, it  is  its  precise  equivalent. 

It  is  not  strange,  therefore,  that  we  find  this  kindred  vice 
among  the  Chinese.  I  quote  (Code,  122,  123)  :  "There  is  a 
custom,  said  to  be  exclusively  confined  to  the  prefectural  city 
(p.  37)  of  Ting  Chao,  in  the  province  of  Fukien,  which 
allows  one  woman  to  fill  the  office  of  wife  to  several  men. 
The  cases  which  have  come  under  the  observation  of  writers 
on  the  subject  have  been  mostly  those  where  several  brothers, 
for  reason  of  their  poverty,  have  one  woman  with  whom  they 
live  alternately.  This  is  called  polyandry,  and  wherever 
practiced,  child  murder  is  practiced."  This  is  from  the  code. 
In  Thibet  and  elsewhere,  except  in  Ceylon,  polyandry  ap- 
•  pears  to  be  everywhere  incident  to  poverty.  The  Moravians 
wink  at  polygamy,  but  are  horrified  at  the  tolerance  of 
polyandry,  a  seemingly  one-eyed  conscience;  but  if  the  doors 
of  the  churches  are  opened  for  one  there  can  be  assigned,  as 
these  missionaries  state,  no  consistent  reason  for  excluding  the 
other, — seats  at  the  table  of  the  Lord  had  just  as  well  be  pre- 
pared for  both  if  for  either.  Indeed,  the  sympathy  of  the 


182 

church  for  the  poor  finds  here  an  anomalous  immoral  sphere 
for  its  exercise.  Even  bestiality  and  sodomy  obtained  an 
the  classic  nations  and  found  apologists  among  philosophers. 
And  considering  the  debasement  of  morals  and  tin- 
of  a  clear  and  clean  standard  of  judgment  amongst  the 
Gentile  peoples,  this  perverted  apologetic  need  cause  no 
greater  surprise  than  the  abnormal  apologetic  for  the  kindred 
and  shocking  vice  and  sin  of  polygamy  by  professed  Chris- 
tians with  the  holy  example  and  teachings  of  the  Savior  be- 
fore them,  and  enthroned  in  their  hearts  and  lives  calling 
them  to  separation  from  all  such  uncleaness  and  enjoining 
them,  "Be  ye  holy,  for  I  am  holy." 

(4)  The  unavoidable  conclusion  to  whirh  this  lurid  state 
of  facte  constrains  us  is  that  there  is  no  hope  of  Christianizing 
China  by  concessions  to  or  tolerance  of  com -ul  linage,  for 
there  is  no  such  thing  as  polygamy  among  the  poor  as  a 
class,  who  are  angered  by  its  tolerance  among  the  rich ;  and 
ffith  the  noble,  with  \vlmm  it  prevails,  it  would  in  no  t 
sense  lessen  the  offense  of  the  gospel  to  them.  It  require- 
persuasion  for  a  true  convert  to  renounce  polygamy.  The 
strong  point  is  to  emphasize  the  lawfulness  of  monogamy 
and  the  sacredness  of  the  marriage  relation  \  h  -  li  th<  ir  cus- 
tom and  law  establish  as  sanctioned  ai  ified  by  the 
Christian  religion,  and  help  them  clear  it  of  abuse.  Of 
course  this  must  sooner  or  later  arouse  the  attention  and  the, 
interest  of  all  true  wives.  And  after  all  tlu  v  must  be  the 
most  influential  women  of  the  empire  as  a  class.  Then,  in- 
deed, would  we  have  an  impressive  realization  of  the  pro- 
phetic import  of  the  Psalmist's  words,  so  long  hidden 
under  a  misconception  and  mistranslation,  but  thus 
revealed  in  the  new  version:  "Thou,  O  God,  didst 


183 

prepare  of  thy  goodness  for  the  poor.  The  Lord  giveth  the 
word :  the  women  that  publish  the  tidings  are  a  great  host."* 
In  all  polygamous  households  the  wife,  the  only  true  wife, 
is  legally  and  by  custom  the  dominant  female  factor.  The 
monogamy  of  the  poor,  and  the  acknowledged  eminence  of 
the  legitimate  wives  of  the  rich  and  noble,  surely  present  a 
vantage  ground  for  the  overthrow  of  concubinage,  so  de- 
lusively honored  by  being  called  polygamy,  as  though  the 
relation  of  the  concubine  was  a  marriage  relation.  This  is 
doubtless  a  strategic  point  of  which  the  apostolic  gospel 
should  take  advantage,  and  an  opportunity  is  now  before  the 
church  ainori^  the  monogamist  heathen.  The  separation 
from  these  concubines  is  not  and  never  was  treated  as  a 
divorce. 

(5)  The  divorces  of  which  the  Savior  took  notice  were  not 
separations  from  concubines,  but  from  real  wives  according 
to  law  and  the  custom  of  the  land.  He  raised  the  dignity  and 
the  sacredness  of  the  marriage  relation  by  restricting  separa- 
tion to  an  offense  which  subverted  and  destroyed  the  bond  of 
conjugal  union  as  established  at  creation  between  one  man 
and  one  woman  as  helpmates  and  united  companions.  These 
divorcements  for  trifling  reasons,  such  as  the  Hillel  school 
approved,  and  the  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews  practiced,  did 
favor  and  were  subservient  to  frequent  marriages  of  one 
woman  after  another  or  consecutive  polygamy,  but  they  did 
not  bring  about  simultaneous  polygamy  or  the  marriage  of 
several  women  at  the  same  time.  Christ's  teaching  was  that 
there  was  no  lawful  or  morally  valid  dissolution  of  the  mar- 
riage bond  between  two  living  persons  except  where  one  was 
innocent  and  the  other  guilty,  so  that  the  guilty  party  could 
not  innocently  remarry,  and  that  the  innocent  wife  was 

*Ps.  68:  10-11. 


184 

equally  with  the  innocent  husband  entitled  to  assert  and  sue 
for  relief  and  redress.  The  two,  husband  and  wife,  for  a 
novelty,  were  in  Jewish  and  Christian  circles  put  on  the 
same  or  equal  footing  of  right  and  privilege  by  Cli 

In  the  extension  of  the  gospel  among  the  nations  of  the 
earth,  it  is  not  conceivable  that  any  doctrine  could  possibly 
have  a  greater  or  more  wholesome  moral  power,  in  trans- 
forming the  family,  than  this  fundamental  and  revolutionary 
doctrine  of  the  gospel  which  sanctifies  monogamous  mater- 
nity as  the  divinely  instituted  conservative  and  formative 
constituent  of  the  family  relation.  When  A  mother 

dipped  him  in  the  Styx,  she  held  him  by  the  heel,  and  that 
became  his  one  vulnerable  point.  Satan's  attempt  to  render 
the  family  invulnerable  to  the  arrows  of  truth,  left  vulner- 
able the  conjugal  bond  of  the  true  wife,  ^the  concubinous 
incrustation  of  which  may  be  struck  off  as  preparatory  to 
revitalizing  it  with  the  potency  of  the  decree,  "What  God 
hath  joined  together  let  no  man  put  asunder."  As  you 
weaken  that  bond  you  enfeeble  the  race,  as  surely  as  God  is 
in  the  affairs  of  man. 

Before  leaving  China  I  feel  constrained  to  mention  one 
more  witness  in  favor  of  our  overture  as  suited  to  Chi 
There  is  a  living  mandarin  of  China  of  high  degree- 
there  are  nine  degrees  and  .his  is  of  the  eighth — who  has  ex- 
amined this  overture  and  approved  it  as  well  suited  to  Ch 
On  his  arrival  in  New  York  city  last  fall,  I  sent  him  this 
overture  and  he  after  examining  it  wrote  me  as  stated.  Thi- 
mandarin  has  been  at  the  very  head  of  the  educational 
work  of  China  for  many  years,  and  no  man  is  better  ac- 
quainted with  the  language,  literature,  history,  philosophy, 
and  social  and  political  condition  of  the  country,  and  it  is 
not  possible  that  any  man's  opinion  on  this  subject  could 
be  of  greater  value  or  a  safer  guide. 


185 

My  reference  is  to  Dr.  W.  A.  P.  Martin,  who  has  resided 
in  China  for  over  fifty  years,  was  President  of  the  Royal 
College  at  Pekin  for  about  thirty  years,  and  when  under  the 
leadership  of  Li  Hung  Chang  the  Imperial  University  of 
China  was  founded  after  the  war  with  Japan,  Dr.  Martin 
was  made  its  chancellor.  Since  our  college  days  we  have 
beeen  friends  and  correspondents.  I  look  on  him  as  one 
of  the  most,  perhaps  the  most,  gifted  of  the  men  who  have 
gone  from  the  United  States  of  America  to  foreign  lands. 

This  overture,  without  the  suggestion  of  a  modification, 
was  emphatically  approved  by  him  as  well  suited  to  China.* 

INDIA. 

India  will  next  claim  our  attention.  There  is  no  more  im- 
portant mission  field  than  it,  unless  it  be  China,  with 
one-fourth  of  the  human  race.  Next  comes  India,  with 
its  one-fifth.  It  is  estimated  that  British  India,  whose  census 
gives  about  300,000,000,  embraces  nearly  one-fifth  of  the  in- 
habitants of  the  world.  It  is  barely  second  in  importance 
to  China,  and  a  greater  host  of  Christian  missionaries  has 
been  devoted  to  its  Christianization.  These  labors  have  now 
been  in  progress  for  over  a  hundred  years,  for  Gary  entered 
India  before  Morrison  entered  China.  There  is  in  India  a 
much  greater  missionary  and  Christian  population  than  in 
China.  The  story  of  these  missions  is  one  of  surprises  and 
thrilling  interest.  But  our  topic  restrain?  us.  Africa  is  a 
complex  dependency  of  complex  Protestant  and  Catholic 
powers;  Japan  and  China  are  independent  Pagan  empires; 
but  India  is,  and  has  been  for  a  century  and  a-half,  a  depend- 

*I  will  give  in  part  Dr.  Martin's  exact  language  of  approval:  "Your 
views  as  to  the  attitude  of  the  Church  on  polygamy  and  concubinage,  I 
heartily  indorse." 


186 

ency  of  England,  the  most  influential  Protestant  power  of  the 
world.  This  background,  ho.-tilo  ;it  first,  and  then  friendly, 
has  served  as  a  special  stimulus  to  missionary  enterprise  in 
India  for  more  than  fifty  years. 

There  is  a  singular  wit  no-  for  monogamy  in  Ceylon, 
among  the  Dravidians.  who  are  esteemed  the  lineal  descend- 
ants of  the  original  inhabitants  of  India,  who,  by  the  Aryans, 
more  than  a  thousand  years  before  the  Christian  era,  were 
reduced  to  abject  sla  come  down  in  history  as 

the  Soudras,  the  lowest  of  the  four  castes.    They  were  dri 
out  and  trodden  down  by  th-   Aryans,  and  their  language  is  a 
mixture  of  Aryan  and  Dravidian.    They  are  thought  to  be 
the  Yakkos  of  the  SaiiM-rit  writers.     This  poor,  downtrodden 
people  observe  lifelong  monogamy.    Uninfluenced  by  for* 
peoples,  polygamy  and  polyandry  are  unknown  by  tli 
There  is  no  prostitniimi  among  them.     Conjugal  fulrlity  is 
remarkable.     Free  courtship  exists,  and  children  art-  treated 
with  kindin's>.     'fills  looks  like  a  stray  number  from  the 
primitive  files  of  man's  original  society;  and  it  is  suggested 
that  it  places  the  onus  on  those  who  question  i  inal 

monogamy  of  the  race. 

The  Dravidian  monogamist  is  taken  from  one  extreme  of 
Indian  life:  and  it  seems  fair  to  single  out  from  the  opposite 
extreme,  as  more  nearly  representing  the  moral  condition  of 
the  Hindus,  an  incredible  Brahmanic  practice  of  polygamy. 
The  facts  are  taken  from  the  History  of  the  London  Mis- 
sionary Society  for  100  years— 1795  to  1895  (p.  49). 

The  Kuhlin  Brahmans  at  Bengal  are  original  orthodox, 
and  are  now  the  highest  of  the  three  orders  of  Brahmans. 
The  lower  ranks  of  Brahmans  aspire  to  the  Kuhlin  rank,  but 
can  only  gain  it  by  marrying  their  daughters  to  a  Kuhlin 
Brahman. 


187 

"This  custom  has  led  to  a  widespread  and  degrading 
profligacy.  A  considerable  dowry  is  given  at  the  marriage, 
and  the  wife  remains  at  her  father's  house.  Her  support  is 
no  charge  to  the  Kuhlin.  The  Kuhlin  Brahman  often  mar- 
ries into  forty  or  fifty  different  families,  and  spends  his  time 
going  from  home  to  home  of  his  many  wives,  honored  as  a 
god,  and  all  the  while  living  a  life  of  sloth  and  debauchery 
that  would  degrade  a  beast."  "This  system  is  a  great  ob- 
stacle to  the  gospel." 

One  is  hardly  prepared  to  appreciate  this  shocking  aban- 
don ment  till  reasonably  well  informed  of  the  superstitious 
esteem  in  which  the  Brahmans  are  held  by  their  countrymen. 
According  to  their  doctrine  amongst  the  Hindus,  all  things 
have  emanated  from  Bnihina — the  Brahman  priests  from  his 
head ;  the  soldiers,  or  kshatrizas,  from  his  arms  and  chest ;  the 
merchants  and  industrial  classes,  or  vaisyas,  from  his  thighs 
and  legs;  and  the  sudras,  or  slaves,  from  his  feet.  The 
Brahmans  are  the  priests  of  their  religion,  and  alone  have  the 
privilege  of  reading  the  sacred  books,  or  vedas.  "They  are 
the  mediators  between  heaven  and  earth,  themselves  wor- 
shiped as  demi-gods.  Cursed  indeed  is  the  man  who  is 
cursed  of  a  Brahman,  and  thrice  blessed  if  but  a  Brahman's 
shadow  fall  upon  him"  (Russell's  Religions  of  the  World, 
p.  89). 

In  1873,  I  heard  Rev.  Norayan  Sheshadrai,  a  converted 
Brahman,  deliver  an  address  in  the  Madison-Square  Presby- 
terian Church,  New  York  City,  on  India  and  his  conversion 
to  Christianity.  I  distinctly  recollect  his  saying,  "I  was 
taught  as  a  Brahman  to  believe  that  I  was  a  god  on  earth." 
The  most  remarkable  thing  about  this  Brahmanic  pretension 
is,  that  the  mass  of  the  people  devoutly  concede  it  to  them 
as  a  great  honor  to  the  nation. 


188 

Where  imperialism  and  royalty  prevail.  (-ppciaily  in  the 
East,  the  example  of  the  court,  as  in  China  and  Japan,  in 
favor  of  polygamy  is  almost  irn  - 

perhaps  more  irresistihle  influent  divine 

Brahman  of  India.  In  India,  tin-  moral  influence  of  the 
Viceroy  and  of  Europeans  for  the  Christian  family  is  neu- 
tralized or  handicapped  by  the  fact  of  their  being  foreigners. 
But  the  example  of  an  ignorant  Brahman  of  beastly  life  in- 
spires reverence,  admiration,  and  imitation.  A  Brahman, 
dying,  may  cry  in  hopeless  uncertainty,  \\  h.  re  am  I 
going?"  Although  hi-  professed  faith  is  that  of  reabsorption 
into  Brahma,  and  though  he  may  have  prayed  for  hours 
daily,  the  most  acceptable  service  his  friends  can  r.-nd.-r  him. 
in  extremis,  is  to  clasp  his  hands  about  the  tail  of  a  cowl 

From  the  first  till  now  polygamy  has  been  a  vexed  ques- 
tion in  India  an  KM,-  the  missionaries,  but  it  is  now  on  the 
eve  of  a  local  and  fi  t,  so  far  as  Presbyterians  are 

concerned. 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
THE  POSITION  OF  THE  CHURCHES. 

I. 

THE  ]'• 

It  was  in  1875.  thirty-one  years  ago,  that 
from  a  Presbytery  in  India  on  this  subject  to  the  Northern 
Presbyterian  General  Assembly,  to  which  the  answer  waft 
given  "That  p<>!  received  into  the  chi< 

while  remaining  in  that  relation."  That  is  to  this  day  the 
unrepealed  rule  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  U.  S.  A. 


189 

Polygamists  Cannot   be  Received  Into   the   Church 
While  Remaining  in  that  Relation. 

Overture  No.  14.  From  the  Presbytery  of  Kolapore, 
asking  for  an  answer  to  the  following  questions, 
namely : 

Can  a  man  who,  before  his  conversion  from 
heathenism,  had  been  the  husband  of  two  wives,  each 
the  mother  of  several  children,  and  with  whom  he 
continues  to  live  in  apparent  harmony,  be  received 
into  the  Christian  church  while  retaining  them  both, 
or  should  he  be  required  to  separate  from  one  of 
them?  In  the  latter  case,  from  which  ought  he  to 
separate?  and  why  should  he  be  separated  from  her? 

The  committee  report  that  they  have  given  the  sub- 
ject the  most  careful  consideration,  and  have  called 
before  them  all  the  foreign  missionaries  in  attendance 
on  the  Assembly,  and  fully  consulted  with  them.  As 
the  result  of  all  their  deliberations,  the  committee 
recommend  that  the  following  answer  be  returned : 

Under  the  light  of  the  gospel  no  man  may  marry  a 
second  wife  while  his  first  is  living  in  conjugal  rela- 
tion with  him,  without  offending  against  the  law  of 
Christ.  Such  a  relation,  although  it  may  be  justified 
by  human  law  and  entered  into  in  ignorance  of  the 
truth,  cannot  be  perpetuated  by  one  who  has  become 
a  follower  of  Christ;  neither  can  he  be  justified  by 
his  church.  Converts  from  heathenism  should  be 
treated  very  tenderly  in  this  most  painful  situation, 
and  yet  they  should  be  dealt  with  in  all  fidelity,  and, 
when  a  converted  man  is  called  to  separate  from  all 
but  his  first  and  only  wife,  he  should  be  enjoined  to 
make  suitable  provision  for  her  that  is  put  away,  and 
for  her  children,  if  she  have  any,  to  the  full  extent  of 
his  ability. 


190 

The  report  was  unanimously  adopted,*  T875,  page  507. 
General  Assembly,  U.  S.  A.,  1898. 

A  Memorial  of  the  Synod  of  India  "requests  the 
General  Assembly,  in  view  of  the  exceedingly  diffi- 
cult complications  which  often  occur  in  the  cases  of 
polygamists  who  desire  to  be  received  into  the  church, 
to  leave  the  ultimate  decision  in  nil  such  cases  in 
India  to  the  Synod  of  India." 

Your  committee  are  unanimously  of  the  opinion 
that  as  the  request  contemplates  a  matter  of  doctrine 
it  cannot  be  granted  in  view  of  the  provision  contained 
in  chap,  xii,  sec.  iv,  form  of  government:  "The  Gen- 
eral Assembly  shall  receive  and  issue  all  appeals,  com- 
plaints and  references  that  affect  the  doctrine  or  con- 
stitution of  the  church  which  may  be  regularly 
brought  before  them  from  the  inferior  judicatories." 

The  provision  is  mandatory.  *  *  *  The  only 
recommendation  is  that  in  view  of  the  mandatory 
nature  of  chap,  xii,  soc.  iv.  "The  request  of  the  Synod 
of  India  cannot  be  granted."!  1896,  pp.  149,  150. 


BUREAU  OF  MISSIONS,  Bin  K  UMI-SK.  \KU  YORK 

"NEW  YORK,  February  26,  1906. 
"Mr  DEAR  DR.  LAVS  :   In  the  Indian  Witness,  pub- 
lished at  Calcutta,  J;  ;u»  following  item 

in  a  report  of  the  im"tin<j  of  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  India  (at  Nagpur,  De- 
cember 16-21)  : 

*  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  overture  before  our  General  Assembly  of 
the  United  States  of  1904  copied  in  part  the  deliverance  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  United  States  of  America  of  1875,  to  which  it  makes 
reference. 

t  The  notable  thing  to  be  observed  in  this  rase  is,  that  a  power 
which  was  denied  to  a  Synod  by  our  sister  Assembly  in  1896,  on 
constitutional  grounds,  was  by  our  Southern  Assembly  lodged  in  the 
discretion  of  individual  missionaries,  1904.  This  is  conservatism  with 
a  vengeance! 


191 

"  'The  Synod  of  Bombay  and  Central  Provinces  re- 
ferred to  the  Assembly  the  question  of  the  baptism  of 
polygamous  converts.  A  Hindu  with  two  legally 
married  wives,  both  of  whom  were  willing  to  follow 
him  into  the  church,  and  the  man  not  prepared  to 
part  with  either  of  them,  applied  to  the  session  of  one 
of  the  churches  in  the  Nagpur  Presbytery  for  bap- 
tism. The  session  referred  the  question  to  the  Pres- 
bytery, and  the  Presbytery,  in  turn,  referred  it  to  the 
'•mbly. 

•*  \\ftcr  careful  consideration,  the  Assembly  de- 
cided to  ask  the  Presbyteries  to  consider  the  question, 
and  send  up  to  the  next  Assembly  their  opinions  as  to 
the  lx-,-4  \\:iy  to  deal  with  such  cases.  In  the  mean- 
time the  Assembly  forbade  the  reception  of  polyga- 
ii lists  into  any  of  the  churches.  In  addition,  the  As- 
sembly appointed  a  committee  of  twelve,  representing 
the  whole  church,  to  gather  information  as  to  the  way 
other  churches  deal  with  this  problem,  and  to  report 
at  the  next  Assembly,  making  any  recommendations 
they  think  wise. 

"  'From  the  discussion  in  the  Assembly  and  in- 
quiries from  the  members,  it  came  out  that  only  two 
Indian  delegates  would  have  voted  in  favor  of  the 
baptism  of  this  man.  We  rejoice  in  this.  The  ad- 
tni^ion  of  polygamous  converts  to  our  churches  in 
India  would  be  a. lowering  of  the  moral  tone  of  the 
church.' 

"It  seems  to  me  that  this  investigation,  as  well  as 
the  ad  interim  prohibition  of  baptism,  is  rather  im- 
portant for  your  case.  Rev.  Dr.  J.  W.  Youngson,  of 
Sialkot,  Punjab,  India,  is  moderator,  and  Rev.  Dr. 
J.  A.  Graham,  of  Kalimpong,  Bengal,  India,  is  stated 
clerk  of  the  General  Assembly. 
"Cordially  yours, 

"HENRY  OTIS  DWIGHT." 


192 

Since  the  last  of  the  above  actions  was  taken,  in  1896,  In- 
dia has,  in  a  Presbyterian  point  of  view,  like  Japan,  become 
autonomous.  And  the  polygamy  question  seems  now  to  be  on 
its  last  legs,  as  may  be  judged  from  the  letter  of  Dr.  Dwi^ht. 
which  I  am  sure  he  will  not  object  to  mv  UMMIT  in  this  con- 
nection. I  am  sure  it  will,  with  thanks  to  Dr.  D wight,  Sec- 
retary of  the  Bureau  of  Missions,  be  very  acceptable  to  any 
one  who,  like  myself,  is  not  otherwise  in  possession  of  the 
information  it  conveys.  I  sincerely  thank  him  for  his  con- 
siderate kindness  in  sending  it  t<»  me  mid  fm  other  favors. 

II 

As  the  position  of  the  American  Board  of  Commissioner* 
of  Foreign  Missions  is  given  so  fully  in  regard  to  Zululand, 
I  will  not  repeat  but  refer  back  to  pp.  160-166. 

Ill 
Th<   /W/Vm  of  the  United  Presbyterian  Church. 

Mr.  Watson,  i he  secretary  of  the  I'nited  Presbyterian 
Board  of  Foreign  M  ?  to  inquiry,  writes  that 

"No   man    living   in    polyg;<  r    ttted    to 

church  membership  or  to  hapt'-m  in  «>ur  missions.     No  such 
persons  are,  therefore,  now  connected  with  ..ur  missio 

IV. 

l)r.  Cohh.  secretary  of  the  Foreign  Mis-ions  of  the  Re- 
formed Church  in  \mcriea,  says:  "Native  churches  are  or- 
ganized in  all  our  mis-ions,  over  which  the  home  church  ex- 
ercises no  control  \\  i  ;  he  does  not  recall  that 
the  quest  on  a.-  to  tli-  Laptism  or  church  membership  of  polyg- 
amous person-  ha.-  ever  been  before  the  board  in  the  twenty- 
three  year?  he  has  been  secretary.'' 


193 

This  looks  like  missionary  anarchy.     How  is  it  with  the 
Inland  Mission  in  China  by  Hudson  Taylor? 


V. 


Dr.  Huntington,  writing  for  Dr.  Barbour,  Secretary  of  the 
American  Baptist  Missionary  Union,  says:  "It  is  the  strong 
feeling  of  the  committee  and  of  our  missionaries  that  the  law 
of  Christ  is  the  only  true  standard  in  such  matters  in  all 
lands  and  among  all  peoples ;  even  a  temporary  waiver  of  the 
principle  is  very  rare." 

Rev.  Dr.  S.  H.  Greene,  pastor  of  the  leading  Baptist 
Church  of  Washington  City,  answers  "not  to  my  knowledge" 
do  Baptist  missionaries  baptize  polygamists  of  either  sex  re- 
taining their  polygamy;  and  that  they  have  the  "same  cus- 
tom everywhere,  so  far  as  I  know." 

I  am  able  to  state  that  the  practice  of  the  Baptist  brethren 
is  not  absolutely  uniform.  But  this  shows  the  prevailing 
sentiment  of  Congregational  Churches,  and  departures  are 
exceptional — "very  rare." 


VI. 


Rev.  A.  B.  Leonard,  corresponding  secretary  of  the  M.  E. 
Church  North,  writes:  "My  understanding  is  that  no  con- 
verts are  received  into  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
(North),  in  foreign  countries,  retaining  polygamous  rela- 
tions. It  is  barely  possible  that  in  some  instances  in  China 
they  have  been  taken  on  probation,  but  under  no  circum- 
stances into  full  membership.  The  subject  is  not  left  to  the 
discretion  of  the  missionaries." 
13 


194 
VII. 


Dr.  W.  R.  Lambuth,  secretary  of  the  Board  of  Missions  of 
the  M.  E.  Church,  South,  says: 

"(1)   A  person  converted  while  living  in  polygamous  mar- 
riage is  neither  baptized  nor  admitted  into  ch-in-h  number- 
ship  in  the  M.  E.  Church  South  until  he  has  j 
but  the  woman  In  whom  he  was  first  n: 

"(2)  The  converted  wife  of  a  polygamous  1,  is  ad- 

mitted to  baptism,  hut  :i»t  •  :i  n:«-nil.er>Mip.  while  re- 

maining in  the  uiMy  relation. 

"Of  coin  \vnuM    ro-i-iiUT   mnriilMniige   as   a<b; 

and  would  not  tolerate  it  in  a  candidate  for  rliunh  MM-!: 
ship;  our  missionaries  have  no  discretion  on  this  poi: 

Rev.  W.  II  t|,,.  pastor  of  the  S™.  M 

Church  of  Washington,  D.  C.,  in  r< -ply-in^  in  iiKjuii 
"The  M.  E.  Church   South,  in  jiivinn  tin-  r  n  to 

adult-.  I  r'i'-in  nnly  nn  profession  of  fait!  h.-ir 

proi  B  the  devil  and  all  his  work-.     A  polyga- 

mist  must  renounce  his  polygamy  before  we  will  baptize  him. 

"Our  rule  is  the  same  at  home  and  abroad.     Our 
Aries  all  operate  under  the  same  rule. 

"\Ve  no  longer  receive  on  probation.     Therefore,  if  bap- 
tism is  denied,  membership  is  al->. " 

V11I. 

The  Paris  Evangelical  Missionary  Society:  "From  their 
periodicals  it  is  learned  that   the  point  of  excluding  from 
church  membership  converts  who  have  more  than  one  v 
is  enforced.     In  the  last  two  or  three  year.-  several  i: 


195 

have  occurred  where  insistence  on  this  rule  has  long  delayed 
the  baptism  of  converts." 

IX. 

The  Executive  Committee  of  Foreign  Missions  of  the  (South- 
ern) Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States. 

"NASHVILLE,  TENNV  November  17th,  1905. 
"REV.  S.  S.  LAWS, 

"1733  Q  St.,  N.  W.,  Washington,  D.  C. 
''DEAR  DOCTOR:  In  reply  to  your  note  just  received, 
I  will  state  (1)  that  we  have  no  information  other 
than  that  which  we  get  from  Mr.  Morrison's  statement, 
quoted  by  you,  as  to  the  number  of  families  in  our 
church  at  Luebo  in  which  the  husband  has  more  than 
one  wife.  (2)  I  suppose  there  are  members  of  our 
churches  in  China  who  have  more  than  one  wife.  I 
am  sure  this  is  not  the  case  in  Japan,  and  I  do  not 
think  it  is  so  in  Korea.  (3)  Of  course,  no  member  of 
the  church  has  been  allowed,  after  he  became  a  church 
member,  to  be  a  polygamist.  (4)  As  to  what  course 
should  be  pursued  with  those  who  were  already 
polygamists,  as  is  the  case  with  nearly  all  the  men  in 
China  who  are  able  to  keep  more  than  one  wife,  I 
think  the  policy  has  differed  according  to  the  views  of 
the  missionary,  and  the  missionaries  have  been  left  to 
deal  with  that  question  according  to  their  own  best 
judgment.  (5)  It  is  not  a  matter  with  which  our  ex- 
ecutive committee  has  any  authority  to  deal,  as  we  only 
handle  administrative  questions  and  leave  doctrinal 
and  ecclesiastical  questions  to  be  decided  as  they  come 
up  by  the  General  Assembly.  (6)  The  question  has 
not  been  raised  heretofore,  that  I  know  of.  As  it  has 
now  been  raised,  it  will  be  for  the  Assembly  to  give  a 
proper  deliverance  on  the  subject,  which  will  be  for 


H0 

the  guidance  of  both  the  missions  and  the  executive 
committee  in  our  future  pol 
"With  kindest  regards, 

"Yours  very  truly. 

"S.  H.  CHESTER, 
"Secretu 

X. 

The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 

(My  inquiry  was  made  of  Dr.  McKim  and  he  referred  it 
to  the  General  Secretary.) 

"Ri;v    II.  IT.  McKiM,  D.  D., 

"Washington,  D.  C. 

"Mv  DEAR  DR.  McKiM:  I  have  just  read  yours  of 
the  14th,  and  with  pleasure  am  sending  back  il it- 
answer  that  the  church's  uniform  rule  has  been, 
is,  that  no  person  living  in  polygamy  can  be  baptized. 
Where  the  case  has  arisen  that  men  were  baptized 
who  formerly  had  a  number  of  wives,  I  understand 
that  provision  has  always  been  made  for  them  (the 
wives), 

"Very  truly  yours, 

"A.  S.  LLOYD, 
"General  Secretary,"  The  Domestic  and  Foreign 

Missionary  Society  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 

Church,  17.  S.  A.,  New  York  City. 

Minute  of  the  London  Church  Missionary  Society  on  Polyg- 
amy in  1856. 

It  confirmed  the  previous  practice  of  the  Yoruba  mission- 
aries agreed  to  by  them  unanimously,  and  with  :  tion 
of  the  Bishop  of  Sierra  Leone,  which  was  "that  while  the 
wives  of  a  polygamist,  if  believed  to  be  true  converts  mi 


197 

be  received  to  baptism,  since  they  were  usually  the  involun- 
tary victims  of  the  custom,  no  man  could  be  admitted  who 
retained  more  than  one  wife."  It  is  printed  as  an  appendix 
to  the  report  for  1856-'57. 

Third  Lambeth  Conference,  London,  1888. 

"The  Conference  itself,  when  the  report  was  presented, 
confirmed  its  chief  recommendations,  viz.:  (1)  That  a  con- 
verted polygamist  should  not  be  baptized,  but  should  continue 
a  catechumen  until  he  should  be  'in  a  position  to  accept  the 
law  of  Christ/  and  (2)  that  the  wives  of  polygamists  might 
be  baptized  under  certain  circumstances  to  be  decided  on 
locally. 

The  General  Convention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  U.  S.  A.,  at  Boston,  1904,  whose  attention  to  mis- 
sions was  unusual,  passed  a  new  canon  that  interests  us.  "A 
new  missionary  canon  provides  that  all  legislation  concern- 
ing missions  and  the  determination  of  missionary  policy 
shall  be  effected  by  the  concurrent  action  of  both  houses 
of  the  General  Convention."  (The  Outlook,  Nov.  5,  1904, 
p.  548.) 

Random  individual  discretion  such  as  the  Lambeth  Con- 
ference allowed  seems  not  to  suit  the  United  States  churches. 
Indeed,  our  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  authoritatively  sanctioned  the  exact  posi- 
tion of  our  overture. 

XI. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church. 

(I  was  referred  by  Dr.  Stafford  to  Dr.  Shahan,  of  the  Uni- 
versity, for  the  information  I  sought,  and  he  referred  my 


198 

letter  to  the  Professor  of  Canon  Law.  who  promptly 
me  the  following  answer:) 

"THE  CATHOLIC  UNIVERSITY  OF  AMERI 

"WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  October  17,  1904. 

"DEAR  DOCTOR  SIIAHAN  The  following  extract 
from  a  decision  of  the  Holy  Office,  June  20,  1866,  is 
an  authoritative,  and,  I  think,  clear  answer  to  the  first 
question  put  by  your  correspond 

"  'There  can  be  no  doubt  that  a  second  marriage 
contracted  by  an  infidel  while  hi<  first  \vifi-  is  still 
alive,  is  null  according  to  both  natural  and  divine 
law.  Hence,  when  it  i-  certain,  first,  that  an  infidel 
( poly  gam  ist)  has  intended  to  contract  a  real  mar 
with  his  first  \vifV.  and  not  to  enter  merely  concuhin- 
ary  relations;  and,  second,  that  no  diriment  impedi- 
ment existed  to  annul  such  a  marria.i:.-.  that  first 
woman  must  be  regarded  afl  his  legitimate  wife,  and 
nil  others  whom  he  took  after  h  with  th«-  first 

must   be   regarded   as  adulteresses   and   concuhines. 
Therefore  the  polypi  mist  must  retain  the  fir-i 
the  only  just  and  lawful  one,  and  must  reject   the 
others.     And  this  obligation,  arising  from  divine  and 
natural  law,  is  by  no  means  lessened  oit  account  of 
conversion;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  all  the  mofl 
BO  that  on  no  consideration  i-  it  allowed  to  1 
polygamist  who  is  unwilling  to  comply  with  it. 

"  'In  one  case  alone  does  this  obligation  cease,  so 
that  a  converted  polygamist  can  contract  marriage 
with  any  woman  he  prefers,  and  that  is  when  tli 
cumstances  allow  the  use  of  the  pri vilege  granted  by 
Christ  our  Lord  in  favor  of  faith,  and  promuli: att-.l  hy 
the  apostle  Paul'  [marrying  in  the  Lord]. 

"In  some  cases,  where  the  previous  relations  par- 
took rather  of  the  nature  of  concubinage  than  ot 
marriage,  and  it  was  impossible  to  ascertain  who  the 


199 

polygamist's  real  wife  was,  the  Holy  See  has  been 
obliged  to  regard  him  as  unmarried. 

"But  in  all  the  pertinent  decisions  there  is  to  be  ob- 
served a  desire  to  safeguard  the  interests  of  the  real 
wife,  if  she  can  be  found. 

"There  is  no  work  in  English  that  treats  this  mat- 
ter. Latin  works  abound,  e.  g.,  Gasparri,  Tractatus 
Canonicus  de  Matrimonio;  De  Becker,  De  Matri- 
monio;  Per  rone,  De  Matrimonio  Christiano;  Palmieri^ 
De  Matrimonio  Christiano,  etc. 

"From  a  non-catholic  standpoint  it  is  considered  in 
the  second  volume  of  Esmein,  Le  Mariage  en  Droit 
Camoriique. 

"Missionaries  are  not  left  to  their  own  discretion  in 
such  ca.<cs,  but  are  governed  very  strictly  by  decrees 
of  the  Congregation  of  the  Holy  Office,  which  have 
been  published  in  the  Collectanea  Sacrse  Congrega- 
tionis  dc  Propaganda  Fide,  Rome,  1893. 

"The  decrees  make  no  mention  of  dependent  chil- 
dren or  of  any  provision  for  the  unlawful  partners  of 
the  convert.  But  the  charity  of  the  missionaries  must 
naturally  be  exercised  in  their  behalf,  in  so  far  as  is 
possible. 

"Yen UN  sincerely, 

"JOHN  T.  CREAGH." 


It  may  be  noted  in  view  of  these  official  expressions  from 
the  different  churches: 

1.  That  whilst  there  is  not  perfect  uniformity,  there  is, 
in  the  main,  substantial  agreement. 

2.  The  burden  of  this  substantial  agreement  sustains  the 
position  of  the  overture  to  come  before  the  Southern  General 
Assembly  in  1906,  in  all  its  parts. 


200 

3.  The  moral  sentiment  in  the  Congregational  bodies  has 
brought  about  an  approximation  to  the  intolerance  of  polyg- 
amy in  the  Church  of  Christ  so  generally  held  by  the  dis- 
ciplinary churches,  whose  will  on  the  subject  is  formulated 
by  the  central  organizations.     The  intolerance  of  falsehood 
and  sin  is  a  defense  of  the  truth,  and  the  only  true  liberality. 

4.  It  is  also  evident  that  to  the  extent  that  individual  dis- 
cretion is  asserted  and  exercised,  irregularity  and  confu- 
result. 

5.  It  is  plain  enough  that  a  more  careful  study  of  the 
Scriptures,  whose  great  lesson  is  intolerance  of  polygamy  as 
of  all  >in,  instead  of  wilfully  substituting  our  own  impres- 
sions for  the  fundamental  scriptural  rule  of  action,  gives  the 
most  hopeful  promi-r  of  still  .mv  :iimitv.  con- 
finion — ail  compromises  \vitli  it  beget  &•                  9trid  ad- 
herence to  the  divine  doetrii                                                iway 
to  harmony  and  maximum  rtlicimey  as  coworkers  with 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  <ha\\in-  all  men  "unto  him,"  and  in 
establishing  and  maintaining  th<-  purity  of  the  Church  <>f  the 
Living  God. 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

INDIANS  AND  MORMONS. 

The  first  clause  in  the  preamble  of  the  Overture  under 
consideration  challenges  attention  to  both  classes  here  named 
as  polygamists.  I  will  quote  it 

"Whereat,  The  missionaries  of  our  church  are  con- 
fronted by  polygamous  sentiments  and  practices  in 
the  States  and  Territories  of  our  country,  North  and 
South,  not  only  hy  Mormon  citizens,  but  also  among 
our  Indians,  and  the  inhabitants  of  our  island  posses- 
sions and  likewise  in  foreign  lands;  and  whereas,"  Ac. 


201 

But  these  polygamists  are  not  in  the  foreign  field.  Those 
hitherto  considered  are  foreigners,  but  these  are  not.  I  would 
emphatically  invoke  attention  to  this  distinction,  for  the 
reason  that  it  has  been  persistently  ignored  or  overlooked. 
These  peoples  are  in  our  own  country  and  the  allotted  bene- 
ficiaries of  our  home  missions  and  missionaries.  The  field 
contemplated  by  the  overture  is  both  home  and  foreign, — 
absolutely  universal  wherever  our  people  publish  the  gospel 
and  are  confronted  by  polygamy. 

I  NWANS. 

Our  best  information  gives  the  United  States  about  two 
hundred  and  sixty  thousand  Indians,  and  Canada  about  two 
hundred  and  four  thousand.  In  the  last  Report  of  the  Com- 
missioner of  Indian  Affairs  our  Indian  "population  is 
enumerated  under  two  hundred  and  fifty-two  names  of  tribes, 
or  separated  parts  of  tribes,  or  remnant  groups." 

In  answer  to  inquiries  I  received  the  following  letter  from 
the  Commissioner : 

"DEPARTMENT  OP  THE  INTERIOR, 

"OFFICE  OF  INDIAN  AFFAIRS, 

"WASHINGTON,  Oct.  17,  1904. 
"Mr.  S.  S.  LAWS.  17.'tt  <}.  St.  AT.  II7.,  City. 

"SiR:  Replying  to  your  verbal  inquiry  as  to  the 
extent  to  which  polygamy  is  practiced  among  Indians, 
I  can  only  give  you  very  general  statements,  as  the 
office  has  no  definite  statistics  on  the  subject. 

"Recognized  polygamy  is  quite  common  among  the 
Navaho  and  is  not  infrequent  among  the  Apaches.  It 
has  prevailed  somewhat  among  the  tribes  in  Okla- 
homa; but  the  Oklahoma  law  of  1897  strictly  forbids 
it.  In  1897  the  agent  reported  that  fifty  Cheyenne 


202 

and  Arapaho  had  more  than  one  wife  and  would  be 
jimtn'flf  1 1  •<>  /•'  •  rt age* 

would  be  forbidden  in  the  future. 

"Immorality  prevails  among  the  Indians,  but 
polygamy  as  an  admissible  institution  is  fast  disap- 
pearing. //  w  undoubtedly  *//'//  i>r«<  •  <i*i>, unity 
among  -m///»//  triln-x  by  D»'  old  nien.  l>ui  the  younger 
•T;iti<»n  kn«  r  ;md  hides  what  it  is  well 
aware  will  not  be  tolerated. 

"One  great  obstacle  in  the  way  of  reform  is  the 
indifferoTMv  of  >  !,,   moral 

status  of  communities  who  do  not  pay  taxes  and  who 
thus  do  not  help  bear  the  expense  of  prosecution  for 
crime. 

"Yours  respectfully, 

\V    A    JONES, 
"Commistioner" 

The  following  ineid.-nt  is  related  by  Catlin,  the  noted  In- 
dian antiquarian  and  the  painter  of  a  greater  m:  'ho 
portrait-  of  In. I  man,irtu 
were  collected  in  the  Smithsonian  In>titini«ui  gallery  and 
were  greatly  damaged  by  fire.  Catlin  states  that  the  son  of  a 
chief  of  one  of  these  polygamous  tribes  had  been  handson 
pm\Mrd  with  an  outfit  for  li<  ludod  to  marry 
He  made  a  selection  and  after  the  arrangement  was  made 
and  the  day  and  place  agreed  on,  he  stipulated  that  the  wed- 
dinu  was  t<>  |.<>  k<  :irl.  and 
a  third  and  a  fourth,  ami  had  the  same  understanding  with 
each.  \\  In  n  tin-  day  arrived,  he  and  all  the  interested  parties 
were  on  hand;  and  as  he  stepped  out  with  the  first  girl,  there 
was  constrrnatiou.  Hut  the  excitement  and  demonstration 
became  intense  when  he  stepped  forth  and  claimed  the  third, 
so  that  he  deemed  it  best  to  explain  that,  according  to  the 


203 

custom  of  his  tribe,  a  man  was  allowed  as  many  wives  as  he 
could  buy  and  support ;  that  the  price  of  a  girl  was  a  pony,  ten 
pounds  of  tobacco,  and  a  gun ;  that  he  had  bought  and  paid 
for  four  and  they  were  all  to  become  his  wives  then  and  there. 
The  turbulence  subsided  in  deference  to  the  force  of  tribal 
custom;  and  when  the  ceremonies  were  over,  this  young 
native  American  took  with  each  of  his  hands  two  wives  and 
tripped  off  to  his  wigwam.  Mr.  Catlin  painted  the  picture  of 
one  of  them  as  the  four  grouped  around  a  fire.  Of  course 
these  so-called  wives  were  looked  on  as  being  as  really  prop- 
erty us  i\\y  ponk'-.  mil'-.  ami  tobacco  that  bought  them.  One 
of  the  sorest  trials  of  polygamists  in  separating  from  their 
plural  wives  is  that  it  is  a  loss  of  property. 

I  will  also  give  a  polygamy  incident  in  the  life  of  an  old 
Indian  chief.  I  clipped  it  from  The  Indian's  Friend,  the 
organ  of  the  Ladies'  National  Indian  Association,  next  to  the 
Board  named  below,  probably  the  most  efficient  friend  of  our 
Indians . 

"Hon.  J.  S.  Sherman,  in  the  Chilocco  Farmer  and 
Stock  Grower,  relates  this  tale  of  Quanah  Parker, 
chief  of  the  Coinanche*.  'Not  long  ago  orders  were 
issued  that  an  Indian  living  in  polygamy  must  cut  off 
his  superfluous  force  of  wives  and  console  himself  with 
one.  Quanah  Parker  immediately  saw  to  it  that  this 
order  wa-  on  forced  on  his  ivsorviition  with  the  excep- 
tion of  his  own  household,  where  the  six  wives  were 
allowed  to  remain.  When  he  visited  Washington  he 
was  taken  to  task  for  this  little  inconsistency. 

"  'Do  you  wish  me  to  tell  five  of  those  women  to  go?' 
he  asked. 

"  'Certainly/  said  the  Commissioner. 

"  'Oh,  no ;  you  tell  'em/  said  Quanah,  after  a  mo- 
ment's reflection. 
"The  future  had  evidently  revealed  itself  to  him." 

(June  19,  1904.) 


204 

It  should  be  remarked,  however,  that  it  is  unusual  for 
Indian  polygamiste  to  have  more  th.  iv.-      It  is  un- 

derstood that  poverty  is  in  tin.-  • 
among  the  Indians  as  with  others. 

This  case  of  the  old  r  be  chief  IB  most  suggestive      it 

suggests  this  curiou-dy  interesting  state  of  fact-,  ih  it 
general  government,  through  the  Department  of  the  Interior, 
has  seriously  undertaken  to  break  up  and  exterminate  polyg- 
amy from  amongst  our  Indians.  That  has  been  brought 
about  in  a  way  that  may  be  briefly  stated,  but  has  escaped  the 
notice  or  the  memory  of  many  intelligent  citizens.  In  1869, 
during  General  Grant's  presidency,  and  under  the  influence 
especially  of  Quak< T  philanthropy,  a  Board  of  Indian  Com- 
missioners \\  -rt  of  mi  tin- 
Indian  I  There  are  three  functionaries  to  be  I 
distinct:  (1)  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior;  (2)  tl  m»- 
sioner  of  Indian  Affairs;  and  (3)  the  Board  <>f  Indian  Co»»> 
missioners  or  the  Bureau  of  Indian  Affairs.  The  members  of 
this  Board  or  Bureau  are  chosen  from  among  distinguished 
citizens  and  serve  gratuitously.  The  specific  and  avowed 
object  of  this  Board  is  to  "help  forward  in  all  right  ways  the 
civilization  of  tl  !iu.,  1901.  p.  i>  The 
citizenship  of  the  individual  Indian  has  been  the  supreme 
aim  of  this  benevolent  organization.  It  would  seem  that  it 
was  after  pursuing  the  problem  in  the  individual,  the  social, 
and  the  public  life  of  the  Indian  some  thirty  years  that,  at 
last,  the  full-orbed  conviction  took  possession  of  the  Board 
that:  "In  order  to  break  up  the  old  savage  life  and  the  old 
tribal  organization-,  which  can  he  so  helpful  «L^  the  inculca- 
tion of  sound  views  of  the  marriage  relation  and  of  family 
life?"  On  its  suggestion,  almost  immediate  steps  seem  to 


205 

have  been  taken  by  Congress,  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior, 
and  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs  (Kept.  Bureau, 
1900,  p.  8). 

The  result  can  be  given  from  the  Report  of  the  following 
year.  The  Board  says,  1901,  p.  5  (Report  of  Com.  Ind.  Af. 
to  Sec.,  1901,  pp.  42-4(5) : 

"REGULATIONS  ADOPTED  TO  CHECK  POLYGAMY,  TO 
SECURE    LICENSE    BEFORE    MARRIAGE,  ,TO    KEEP 

REGIMKKS  <>i    FAMILY  RELATIONSHIPS,  ETC. 

"In  our  last  annual  report  we  called  attention  to  the 
great  need  of  regulations  to  prevent  polygamy  and  to 
build  up  a  true  family  feeling  among  the  Indians.  It 
gives  us  great  pleasure  to  report  that,  acting  upon  the 
suggestions  of  this  board  and  in  consultation  with  us, 
the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs,  with  the  approval 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  has  issued  regulations 
requiring  each  agency  and  sub-agency  to  make  and 
to  keep  up  a  register  of  all  Indians,  giving  their 
family  relations  so  far  as  possible,  and  from  this  time 
on  keeping  an  accurate  record  of  marriages,  births, 
and  deaths.  These  regulations  further  prohibit  polyg- 
amous marriages;  require  a  license  before  marriage  in 
order  to  insure  the  prevention  of  polygamy  and  the 
proper  age  in  the  contracting  parties,  etc.;  and  they 
further  require  the  solemnization  of  each  marriage 
by  ini.-siniiMrv.  minister,  priest,  or  civil  officer  of  the 
State  or  Territory,  as  the  applicants  may  choose,  with 
return  of  names  of  the  contracting  parties  and  dates, 
to  be  made  by  the  person  who  officiates  at  the  marriage 
and  to  be  duly  recorded  at  the  agency.  Marriage  cer- 
tificates, designed  to  be  framed  and  hung  in  Indian 
homes,  are  also  issued  free  of  expense  to  all  Indians 
who  are  duly  married.  Since  the  severalty  act  (1871) 
has  already  made  full  citizens  of  more  than  60,000 


206 

Indians,  and  since  all  who  thus  become  citizens  am 
under  obligation  to  observe  the  laws  which 
marriage  in  the  State  or  Territory  in  which 
reside,  it  is  evident  that  these  regulations  were  greatly 
needed  and  should  be  carefully  carried  out  at  every 
agency." 

Actual  experience  extending  over  thirty  years,  an  ordinary 
lifetime,  has  led  these  active  and  faithful  guardians  of  these 
national  wards  to  exert  a  successful  influence  on  the  general 
government  to  lay  down  the  law  of  monogamy  and  anti- 
polygamy  as  the  fundamental  law  of  their  family  life  as  a 
condition  of  I'nited  States  <  if>  as  distinizuMied  from 

their  tribal  or  barbarous  citizenship.  The  underlying  reason 
of  this  H  thai  only  such  families  are  compatible  with  the 
betterment  of  the  Indian  and  of  the  self-preservation  of 
our  federal  gOM  's  of  land  to  individuals 

carry  citizenship  md  are  made  only  to  monogamists — the 
polygamist  is  required  to  separate  from  all  but  his  one  wife. 
Family  inheritances  are  regulated  accordingly. 

Now  the  bearing  of  all  this  on  our  missionary  and  church 
problem  is  so  ohvious  a§  Mar<  ;oed  statement.  The  ar- 

gument i-  ai^ain  n  fortinri — from  the  weaker  to  the  .-' 
from  the  inferior  to  the  superior.  If  on  strictly  rational  and 
political  grounds  polygamy  is  adjudged  destructive  to  the 
well  heinjjof  the  people  and  the  state  as  a  political,  social,  and 
moral  organism,  much  more  is  it  ruinous  to  the  church  as  a 
religious  and  spiritual  ori:ani/ati<»n.  Shall  it  De  said  in  this 
case  that  "ill.  yota  «,f  \\\\<  world  are  for  their  own  genera- 
tion (oraur<  wi^erthan  the  sons  of  liuht"?  I  feel  inclined  to 
say  that  the  only  sons  of  liizht.  whose  unwisdom  is  in  thi- 
matter  conspicuous  by  contrast,  are  those  constituting  the 
sporadic  faction  of  the  polygamist  apologists. 


207 

As  illustrating  the  misconceptions  to  which  the  advocacy 
of  this  beneficent  overture  has  been  subjected  by  otherwise 
intelligent  men,  I  will  close  this  topic  with  the  following 
quotations  from  the  Central  Presbyterian,  with  thanks  for  the 
appreciative  service  : 

February  7,   1906: 

\MOTS    PKKSr,YTKKl.\  \> 


"Swh  i>  thesoi'T  impeachment  of  Dr.  8.  S.  Laws  in  a 
recent  number  of  the  Central  Presbyterian  in  his  effort 
to  get  his  overture  before  the  next  General  Assembly. 
In  defending  himself  from  the  charge  of  an  attack  on 
Foreign  Missions,  he  makes  the  assertion  that  polyg- 
amy exists  among  our  Indians,  as  well  as  in  Luebo, 
Africa.  1  wish  to  say  that  this  is  a  mistake  so  far  as 
the  Indians  are  concerned.  I  have  spent  a  large  por- 
tion of  my  time  in  Indian  Territory  since  I  have  been 
Secretary  ;  I  know  all  the  missionaries  personally,  and 
nearly  all  of  the  elders,  and  a  large  number  of  the 
private  membership;  and  I  have  never  heard  the 
slightest  hint  of  any  case  of  polygamy  anywhere 
among  our  people.  I  do  not  believe  that  any  such 
case  exists.  I  cannot  answer  for  Luebo,  Africa,  but  I 
do  not  Inflate  to  say  it'  llu-iv  is  no  more  polygamy  in 
Luebo,  Africa,  than  among  our  Indians  in  the  Terri- 
tory, that  Dr.  Laws  has  no  ground  of  complaint  for 
an  overture. 

"S.  L.  MORRIS,  Secretary." 

February  M.   I'.HW: 

"In  our  last  issue,  Dr.  S.  L.  Morris,  our  Secretary  of 
Home  Missions,  has  a  card  referring  to  the  overture  of 
the  Rov.  Dr.  S.  S.  Laws  on  Polygamy.  in  which  Dr. 
Morris  says:  'In  defending  himself  from  the  charge 


308 


of  an  attack  <>n  Foreign  Mi.—  inn-.  In-  muke>  the 
tion  that  polygamy  exi.-ts  among  our  Indians,  a*  well 
as  in  Luebo,  Africa.  I  wish  to  say  that  this  is  a  mis- 
take so  far  as  the  Indians  are  concerned/  Our  re- 
spected Secretary,  we  are  sure,  misunderstands  Dr. 
Laws,  who  in  the  overture  clearly  refers  to  the  whole 
body  of  American  Indians,  and  not  to  the  limited 
mimhrr  ;;  OUT  chuivhe-  ami  :ni  —  i"i^.  In  a  communi- 
cation to  us,  Dr.  Laws,  by  a  number  of  quotations 
from  the  official  papers  of  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment, shows  that  beyond  a  question  polygamy  does 
exist  among  \m<  -riran  Indians,  fully  justifying  the 
statement  of  his  overture.  Of  course,  Dr.  Laws  never 
made  'an  attack  on  Foreign  Missions/  and  he  has  no 
reason  to  defend  himself  from  any  such  charge.  But 
we  believe  that  he  has  ground  for  asking  that  our 
Assembly  make  a  clear  and  unmistakable  deliverance, 
warning  our  missions,  at  home  and  abroad,  against 
any  complicity  with  polygamy." 

M< 

Morinnm-ni.  as  originally  p  d,  was  understood  to 

be  a  mi-  lerprise  for  ;  very  of  our  Indians 

;L<  the  IM-I  t(ii  tribes  of  Israel,  whose  ;is  to  be 

built  on  tin-  continent.  This  explains  the  strange  movement 
from  Ohio  to  the  western  in;,:  Miff  thai  'ln-y  might 

be  near  the  Indian>.  Ilmce  Article  10  of  thoir  creed:  "\V.« 
believe  in  the  literal  id  in  the  restorat 

of  the  ten  trih.-."  Indeed,  their  leader  tiiM  -lurk  his  stake 
down  JIM  \\e-t  <>t  tli.  Missouri  line,  in  the  soil  of  Kansas,  in 
the  hounds  of  the  K  r\  trih.  tern- 

plated  T'  But  on  being  inform.  "d  hy  tin-  proper  au- 

thority that  ii<    \\Mpld  not  be  allowed  to  pro<    .  d  there  with 


209 

that  enterprise,  he  very  soon  received  a  special  revelation  that 
Independence,  a  town  about  ten  miles  directly  east  of  Kansas 
City,  was  the  chosen  site.  In  the  western  edge  of  Independ- 
ence the  Mormons  at  this  time  own  a  beautiful  lot,  and  a 
stone  meeting-house  is  erected  on  it.  I  have  attended  Mor- 
mon meetings  in  it. 

I  might  state  right  here  that  this  property  was  in  litigation 
for  a  number  of  years,  the  litigants  being  the  two  factions, 
the  polygamist  and  the  anti-poly gamist  Mormons,  and  the 
poly  gam  ists  gained  the  suit.  The  home  center  of  the  polyg- 
amist faction  is  in  Utah,  and  the  corresponding  home  of  the 
anti-polygamist  Mormons  is  in  Iowa.  Fifteen  years  ago  a 
thousand  of  the  citizens  of  Independence,  Missouri,  were 
Mormon.-. 

Let  it  be  understood  at  once  that  the  Mormons  were  not 
originally  polygamists,  but  strict  monogamists.  The  Mor- 
mon Bible — the  Book  of  Mormon — is  explicitly  and  fiercely 
opposed  to  polygamy.  I  will  quote  a  single  passage  from  the 
Book  of  Jacob,  chapter  2:  "Wherefore,  my  brethren,  hear 
me,  and  hearken  to  the  word  of  the  Lord :  for  there  shall  not 
any  rnan  among  you  have  save  it  be  one  wife;  and  concu- 
bines he  shall  have  none:  for  I,  the  Lord  God,  delight  in  the 
chastity  of  women ;  and  whoredoms  are  an  abomination  be- 
fore me;  thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts." 

Joseph  Smith  claimed  that  the  revelation  authorizing  and 
commanding  polygamy  was  given  him  and  his  latter-day 
saints  July  12,  1843.  A  company  of  ladies  (whose  names  I 
could  give)  visited  Mrs.  Orson  Pratt,  at  Salt  Lake  City,  1882. 
Her  husband  and  she  had  become  Mormons  before  polygamy 
was  practiced  by  them.  Her  story  was  that  Smith  acted  in 
such  a  way  as  to  cause  quite  a  stir,  and  then  conveniently  this 
14 


210 

revelation  came  to  him  at  Nauvoo,  Illinois  on  the  above  date. 
Brigham  Roberts  claimed  that  it  was  as  early  as  1831. 

Orson  Pratt,  one  of  the  apostles,  was  reluctant  about 
plying  with  the  new  revelation  by  taking  additional  \v 
but  he  was  dragooned  into  it,  as  Mrs.  Prntt  related.     Not  till 
he  had  taken  four  more  did  he  say  anything  to  her  about  it, 
and  then  he  informed  h.-r  thai  -he  niu-t  \  «>t  tin-r- 
ail his  attentions,  as  he  MIM  -hare  them 

She  at  once  ni  :i(d  th;;!  -h«-  w<»r,ld  no  longer  rcco-  :n  as 

her  husband,  and  took  her  four  children  and  hr,  -red 

upon  a  3esperate  struggle,  unaided,  to  raise  them,  livery 
obstacle  was  thrown  in  her  way,  and  every  inducement  was. 
offered  to  have  her  return.  illingly  or  of  neces- 

Hut  she  bore  hen 

these  la<i  Dted   her.  were,  after  the  exam]  !i«ir 

mother,  monogamists. 

Mrs.  Pratt  had  the  portrait  of  her  husband  and  the  f 
of  her  children  on  the  wall  of  her  humble  abode,  and  spoke 
of  him  affectionately  as  having  been  overruled  by  his  asso- 
ciates.    Our  party — and  Mrs.  E^-Goven  Mis- 
souri, was  one  of  it — heard  Orson  Pratt  in  the  Taben 
the  Sunday  preceding  the  Monday  on   which  these  ladies 
called  on  his  wife.     Mrs.  Hardin  had  knowledge  of  her  case, 
and  greatly  sympathized  with  her. 

In  1844  Smith  was  killed,  probably  assassinated,  by  one  of 
the  mob  that  broke  into  the  jail  where  he  was  a  prison* 
young  Englishman,  from  -pecial  ]>fovo.  o  of  whose 

sisters  had  been  induced  to  go  to  Nauvoo.     The  Mormons 
had  been  driven  from  Missouri  at  the  point  of  the  bayo 
because  of  their  lawlessness,  whilst  Independence  was  their 
home;  and  in  like  manner  they  were,  and  for  like  rea-< 


211 

driven  from  Nauvoo,  Illinois.  My  own  brother-in-law, 
Judge  W.  T.  Wood,  was  acting  State's  attorney  at  the  time 
of  the  expulsion  from  Missouri.  He  informed  me  that  Smith 
offered  him  a  retainer  of  ten  thousand  dollars,  which  was  an 
enormous  fee  sixty  years  ago,  but  Mr.  Wood  declined,  with 
the  not  very7  complimentary  remark:  "Mr.  Smith,  I  know 
too  much  of  your  case  to  undertake  it." 

Polygamy  has  been  made  the  corner-stone  of  their  eccle- 
siastical and  social  system.  At  Ogden,  June  12,  1903,  the 
present  head  of  the  Mormon  organization  said  "that  anyone 
who  denied  the  doctrine  of  polygamy  might  as  well  deny  any 
other  doctrine  of  the  prophet  Joseph."  This  same  head  of 
the  church,  about  two  years  ago,  under  oath  in  the  still  pend- 
ing Smoot  case,  stated  that  he  had  five  wives,  and  that  his 
family  expenses  were  about  $20,000  a  year.  Not  all  are  able 
to  practice  the  precious  doctrine  of  polygamy. 

Is  it  not  passing  strange  that  in  their  thirteen  articles  of 
faith,  which  are  scattered  far  and  wide,  there  is  not  one  word 
on  the  subject.  But  their  "everlasting  covenant  of  polyg- 
amy" is  known  as  enjoining  "and  if  ye  abide  not  that  cove- 
nant, then  are  ye  damned."  cflf  a  man  espouse  a  virgin,  and 
desire  to  espouse  another,  *  *  *  if  he  have  ten  virgins 
given  him  by  this  law,  he  cannot  commit  adultery,  for  they 
belong  to  him,  and  they  are  given  unto  him ;  therefore  he  is 
justified."  (See  P.  G.  P.,  pp.  123,  126.)  Again,  p.  125: 
"If  plural  marriage  be  unlawful,  then  is  the  whole  plan  of 
salvation,  through  the  house  of  Israel,  a  failure,  and  the 
entire  fabric  of  Christianity  without  foundation." 

The  statement  seems  to  be  fully  warranted  that  their  theory 
of  polygamy  is  the  outcropping  of  or  has  led  to  blank  athe- 
ism. Listen :  "Are  there  more  gods  than  one?  Yes,  many. 


la- 
God  him*- It'  \\as  once  as  we  are  now,  and  is  an  exalted  n. 
And  you  have  got  to  learn  how  to  be  god*  yourselve>.  tin- 
same  as  all  gods  have  done  before  you.     He  (Adam)  is  our 
Father  and  our  God,  and  the  only  God  with  whom  we  i 
to  do.     There  is  no  other  God  in  heaven  but  that  God  who 
has  iiesh  and  bones."     There  is  not  a  glimmer  of  ( 
ity  nor  of  true  Deism  except  in  phrase  alone — the  kernel  of 
the  nut  is  impious  atheism. 

A  grosser,  more  thoroughly  sensual  and  del 
of  esoteric  opinions  and  practice  has  never  been  foisted  on  an\ 

y  of  dupes.     The  Baptist  Home  Mission  M 
of  April  19,  1906,  has  an  admirable  and  carefully  prepared 
article  on    "Mormon. 

The  origin  of  the  Mormon  Bible  is  very  well  u 
Solomon  Spaulding  was  a  Congregational  minister  of  North 
east,  Ohio,  whose  health  failed  him;  and  ou  giving  up  the 
ministration-  of  th.    pulpit  IK-  win  led  away  his  time  writing 
n;  the  style  of  the  Chronicles  his  romantic  luculmi 
specting  the  lost  tribes  of  Israel.     Occasionally  he  would  ; 
these  effusions  to  friends.    The  manuscripts  disappeared  i. 
teriously,  but  were  recognized  as  freely  edited  in  the  Book 
of  Mormon.     \Vln-n  the  manuscript  was  offered  to  Thurlow 
Weed,  of  Albany.  N    V.,  for  publication,  although  a  resj 
sible  farmer  offered  to  go  security,  he  refused  to  publish  it, 
deeming  it  a  fanfaronade  of  balderdash. 

The  original  manuscript,  written  at  the  dictation  of  Joseph 
Smith,  was  a  few  years  since  in  the  j-  of  a  son  of  OIK- 

of  the  original  witiK>sc-.  who  lived  at  Richmond.  Missouri. 
The  polygamist  faction  of  Utah,  it  was  so  reported,  offend 
a  large  sum  for  this  manuscript,  but  it  was  refused. 

When  Smith  found  the  bronze  plates,  so  the  story  goe>.  he 
found  with  them  a  translucent  stone  or  gem ;  and  it  was  only 


213 

when  he  looked  at  the  engravings  on  the  plates  through  this 
stone  that  he  was  able  to  translate  them.  A  curtain  was 
drawn  across  the  room,  and  Smith,  from  behind  it,  dictated 
aloud  to  his  amanuensis,  who  wrote  it  down.  And  it  is 
believed  that  Joseph  Smith  did  this  dictation  from  the 
Spaulding  manuscript.  No  one  but  himself  ever  saw  the 
plates. 

In  the  Mormon  creed  anthropomorphism  is  not  viewed  as 
a  helpful  symbol  or  parable  leading  to  a  fundamental  truth 
beyond,  as  when  man  is  viewed  as  imaging  God;  but  with 
the  Mormon  it  is  itself  the  ultimate — a  perfectly  stupid  sui- 
cide of  thought  and  intelligence — resolving  man  himeslf  into 
God  and  the  object  of  his  own  worship.  This,  however,  is  a 
freak  not  limited  to  the  Mormons. 

The  eternal  covenant  of  matrimony  projects  a  neverlasl- 
ing  proliferation  of  gods  of  human  origin  and  human  attri- 
butes ;  and  hence  the  sealing  with  even  departed  spirits.  It  is 
well  understood  that  the  blood  covenant,  or  atonement,  not 
mentioned  in  the  articles,  and  of  which  there  is  so  much 
vague  .shyness,  is  such  an  interpretation  of  brotherly  love 
that,  if  a  brother  is  liable  to  fall  away,  he  is  to  be  saved  by 
the  shedding  of  his  blood.  It  is  analogous  to  Freeman,  of 
Maine,  killing  his  daughter  to  save  her.  The  circumstantial 
injunctions  are  shocking.  But  I  must  abstain;  there  was  in 
my  burned  library  quite  a  complete  collection  of  the  litera- 
ture of  this  anomalous  abortion. 

I  will  remark  two  things: 

(1)  The  State  of  Utah  and  the  Mormon  Church  are  two 
distinct  institutions  which  should  not  be  confounded.  The 
State  is  entitled  by  the  United  States  Constitution  to  repre- 
sentation in  our  Senate.  But  the  Mormon  Church  has  no 
such  right;  indeed,  this  "church"  may  inflict  on  its  devotees 


214 

an  incurable  disability  to  represent  the  State.     Th 
question. 

Suppose  a  man  elected  from  the  State  of  New  Jen 
found  to  be  a  member  of  the  association  of  anarchists,  would 
not  that  connection  with  such  an  organization  in  the  State 
be  deemed  a  sufficient  reason  for  declaring  his  seat  vacant? 

It  would  not  require  an  overt  act  of  anarchy  after  tin 
tion  or  entrance  oath,  but  the  representative  status  of  tin- 
man would  be  fatally  disqualified.     His  supposed  qualifica- 
tion would  become  a  nullity,  though  no  la\\  j>er- 
sonally  chargeable  to  him. 

(2)  It  used  to  be  the  case  that  an  atheist  was  nob  allowed 
to  take  an  oath  in  (he  courts;  and  whilst  that  credal  rule  has 
been  relaxed,  nevertheless  a  man's  status  may  be  such  that 
his  sworn  relations,  so  long  as  those  relations  are  retained, 
may  utterly  disqualify  him  to  give  or  take  a  credible  oath  of 
allegiance  and  service. 

It  may  be  recalled  that  throughout  the  Bible  polygai 
the  companion  of  polytheism,  and  polytheism  is  athrism  in 
fact.     Hence  the  religious  atheism  of  Monnonism,  with 
polygamy,  give  it  a  broad  and  unenviable  association  with 
one  of  the  most  blighting  and  <1  I  of  the 

well-being  of  our  race.  Human  nature  is  logical;  give  it 
premises  or  principles,  and  it  will  work  out  the  legitimate 
results.  There  is  a  logic  of  events.  And  the  respon 
movement  may  be  either  upward  or  downward.  In  this  case 
the  downward  trend  admits  properly  of  no  question  in 
Church  or  State. 

The  same  evil  faith  and  association  may,  apart  from  indi- 
vidual overt  unlawful  action,  disqualify  for  membership,  or 
citizenship,  in  both  Church  and  State.  The  truth  ia  that 
both  the  Christian  church  and  the  civilized  State  move  by 


215 

faith.  Our  faith  in  our  neighbors  and  in  our  public  officials 
is  most  pronounced.  It  is  the  undergirding  of  our  social, 
national  and  ecclesiastical  life. 

In  leaving  this  subject,  I  will  remark  that  it  is  now  a  mat- 
ter of  common  information  that  Mormonism — this  sub- 
versive and  so-called  religion,  but  religio-political  scheme,  for 
a  long  time  treated  with  contempt  and  indifference,  already 
in  about  three-fourths  of  a  century,  to  such  an  extent,  by  per- 
sisicnt  propagandism,  dominates  Utah  and  other  new  western 
States,  as  to  threaten  seriously,  at  no  distant  day,  a  con- 
trolling faction  in  our  Senate.  It  will  be  a  great  misfortune 
to  allow  things  to  drift  along  till  then  before  awakening  to 
the  peril.  Being  forewarned,  we  should  be  forearmed;  and 
the  time  of  action  already  confronts  us. 

In  this  case  we  have  an  abortive  outbirth  of  the  fanatical 
union  of  politics  with  a  scheme  that  prostitutes  the  name  of 
religion,  and  illegitimately  claims,  under  the  title  of  latter- 
day  saints,  a  kinship  to  Christianity.  This  is  an  emphatic 
notification  that  apologists  for  polygamy  in  Christian 
churches  abet  and  favor  this  imposture  in  fact,  and  all  its 
dire  consequences,  whether  they  so  design  or  not. 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 
CONCLUSION. 

In  conclusion,  let  us  reassure  ourselves  that  the  missionary 
goes  forth  under  the  great  commission  not  as  a  timid,  shrink- 
ing, and  compromising  apologist,  but  in  the  fearless  and 
thoroughgoing  defense  of  truths  and  principles  whose 
avowed  aim  and  mission  are  to  overturn  and  cast  down  the 
strongholds  of  Satan  primarily  in  the  individual  hearts  and 
lives  of  men,  and  through  them  to  leaven,  for  good,  societies 
and  States  as  the  natural  and  inevitable  consequence.  So- 


216 

called  ancestral  worship,  which  is  the  ostensible  motive  for  so 
much  polygamy,  bears  the  marks  of  a  supreme  Satanic  device 
to  obstruct  the  gospel.  Ancestral  remembrance,  respect,  and 

reverence  are  good  and  noble  traits;  but  to  pervert  tl 
worthy  sentiments  into  a  worship  which  dethrone  tli 
dence  of  God  and  puts  the  creature,  even  though  a  revered 
parent,  in  the  place  of  the  Creator,  is  dishonoring  to  God  and 
wicked.  The  mission  should  by  the  gospel  sanctify  the  senti- 
ment and  cherish  it;  strip  it  of  its  profane  idolatry  and  culti- 
vate it  a*  fulfillin;:  the  r>th  Commandment.  (Dent.  \  16.) 
Rescue  it  from  this  lamentable  perversion;  then  this  worship 
would  be  superseded  by  something  mom  rational  and  sacred 
and  the  idolatrous  perversion  would  cease  to  be  an  obstacle 
«'ith<T  to  the  spread  or  the  perpetuation  <>f  the  gospel.  In 
every  case  the  gospel  brings  the  heathen  something  better 
than  what  he  has:  it  puts  him  in  possession  of  somethinsi  in- 
finitely better  than  what  he  costs  aside.  Christianity  goes  for 
the  best  and  brings  the  best,  for  it  is  heaven's  best  gift  to  man. 
The  new  reading  of  the  history  of  the  family,  which  has 
been  most  industriously  pursued  of  late  years  under  the  im- 
pulse of  radical  evolutionary  skepticism,  and  has  assumed 
to  reconstruct  all  history,  sacred  and  profane,  has  rather 
strengthened  than  weakened  ihr  i>n-nm|'ii<>n  in  favor  of  the 
lifelong  union  of  one  man  and  one  WM; 
relation  of  the  human  sexes.  A-  bo  Mr.  Darwin.  1 
from  the  passion  of  jealousy,  which  man  has  in  common  with 
the  brutes,  that  the  most  probable  view  is  that  he  <nrm) 
aboriginally  lived  in  small  communities,  each  with  a  single 
wife,  or,  if  powerful,  v  h  MW  r  il,  whom  he  jealously  guarded 
against  all  other  men."  According  to  this,  monogamy  was 
the  rule,  and  plural  wives  the  departure.  Herbert  Spencer, 
in  his  "Principles  of  Sociology,"  p.  698,  says:  "Monogamy 


217 

dates  back  as  far  a^  any  marital  relation;"  also:  "Polygamy 
can  but  in  exceptional  cases,  and  then  in  only  slight  degree, 
permit  better  relations  than  exist  among  animals."*  On  page 
700  he  says:  "The  rnouogamic  family  is  the  most  evolved," 
/'.  e.t  the  highest  and  most  perfect  conjugal  relation.  And 
the  closing  words  of  the  chapter  from  which  these  quotations 
are  taken  are  as  follows:  "Monogamy  has  long  been  growing 
innate  in  the  individual  man — all  the  ideas  and  sentiments 
that  have  become  associated  with  marriage  having,  as  their 
necessary  implication,  the  singleness  of  the  union"  (p.  704). 
This  prepares  us  to  appreciate  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  Spencer's 
accomplished  friend,  Prof.  Huxley,  who  is  one  of  the  highest 
authorities  on  ethnology,  and,  in  opposition  to  Prof.  Agassiz 
and  his  school,  utterly  repudiates  the  multiple  origin  of  the 
human  race,  polygeny,  and  emphatically  approves  its  monog- 
eny,  or  the  unity  of  its  origin.  He  insists  that  a  single  pair, 
and  actually  names  Adam  and  Eve,  is  an  entirely  adequate 
origin  of  the  human  race,  with  all  its  varieties.  No  writer 
was  better  informed  or  less  influenced  favorably  by  religious 
prejudice  in  making  this  statement  than  Huxley. 

It  seems  to  me  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  overestimate 
the  apolegetic  value  of  this  testimony  of  these  three  witnesses, 
Darwin,  Spencer,  Huxley.  It  is  an  implied  vindication  of 
the  solid  value  of  the  Bible  narrative  of  man's  estate  in  Eden, 
and  of  Jesus  Christ's  exposition  thereof.  Indeed,  it  may  be 
set  down  among  the  anticipations  of  the  Bible,  persistently 
and  for  long  ages  rejected  and  even  scoffed,  but  finally  sub- 
stantiated by  investigation  and  discovery.  Agassiz  believed 
in  God,  but  held  to  the  multiple  origin  of  our  race  as  of 
plants,  and  opposed  evolutionism.  But  atheistic  evolution 

*Thia  view  of  Mr.  Spencer  suggests  that  the  toleration  of  polygamy  in 
our  country,  whether  in  Utah  or  elsewhere,  is  an  insidious  but  unmis- 
takable step  backward  toward  brutal  barbarism. 


218 

has  refuted  the  multiple  origin,  and  in  vindication  of  its  own 
unifying  pretensions  has  contributed  to  the  vindication  of 
the  theory  of  the  Bible  that  the  entire  human  race  has  sprung 
from  a  single  pair  And  this  means,  of  course,  that  man's 
original  sex  relation  was  monogamnu-.. 

From  this  standpoint  li  view  a  concession  to 

polygamy,  touching  citizenship  in  the  State  or  membership 
in  the  Hinrch  of  Christ,  oil.  lian  as  a  backward  step 

from  monogamy  towards  barbarism?  To  step  down  from 
monogamy  to  polygamy  is  to  step  from  a  rock  into  a  filthy 
mudhole.  To  rise  from  polygamy  to  monogamy  is  to  rise 
heavenward.  To  compromise  with  it  under  any  circum- 
stances is  t<>  compromise  truth  with  falsehood.  "Speak  unto 
the  children  of  Israel,  that  they  go  forward"  It  was  I 
ingstone's  motto  "Anywhere,  provided  it  be  forward." 

These  distinguished  scientists  do  not  reckon  with  the 
Bible  nor  with  the  teaching  of  Christ,  and  yet  they,  on 
purely  natural  ami  rational  grounds,  condemn  and  proscribe 
polygamy  as  a  degradation  <>f  humanity,  and  incompatible 
with  the  true  interests  of  civilized  soc 

On  ethnological  Around-  Darwin,  Herbert  8fM 

and  Professor  Huxley  may  all  be  cited,  after  tracing  man's 
sex  relations  through  animal  promiscuity  and  every  gradation 
of  matriarchal.  p;i'  ..  polygamous  and  polyandrous 

states,  as  having  substantially  gravitated  to  a  conch>i»n  in 
favor  of  the  primitive  and  finally  destined  monogamjr,  as  the 
beginning  and  hiizli  nt  of  the  sex  relation  of  the 

race  of  man.  1 1  i.iay  be  stated  that  this  most  recent  research 
into  the  history  of  the  family,  making  reasonable  allowance 
for  inevitable  vagaries,  winds  up  with  what  may  be  set  down 
as  virtually  an  undesigned  and  unacknowledged  substantial 
agreement  on  this  vital  point  with  the  Christian  scripture. 


219 

As  pointing  to  the  law  of  nature  as  controlling  the  relation 
of  the  sexes,  it  is  stated  that  in  India  95  per  cent,  of  the 

60,000,000  Mohammedans  are  monogamists;  in  Persia,  98 

• 

per  cent. ;  and  probably  about  the  same  with  the  30,000,000 
or  40,000;000  in  China,  notwithstanding  the  Koran  allows 
four  wives  and  as  many  concubines  as  a  man  may  choose  to 
support.  Among  the  American  aborigines,  the  same  author- 
ity states  that  though  polygamy  widely  exists,  yet  monogamy 
is  the  rule,  and  few  have  more  than  two  wives.  Howard,  in 
his  history  of  "Matrimonial  Institutions,"  also  says:  "Almost 
everywhere  polygamy  is  confined  to  a  very  small  part  of  the 
people,  the  majority  being  monogamous"  (pp.  144-150). 
His  estimate  is  that  at  least  98  per  cent,  of  the  race  are  mo- 
nogamous. That  would  give  a  sum  total  of  polygamists  in 
the  world,  if  there  are  two  millions  out  of  every  one  hundred 
millions  and  there  are  one  thousand  five  hundred  millions 
of  human  beings  in  the  world,  at  30,000,000.  "And  so," 
Howard  says,  "we  come  back  to  the  starting  point.  The  com- 
plex phenomena  of  human  sexual  relations  have  been  exam- 
ined in  the  light  of  scientific  criticism  and  recent  research. 
The  revult  seems  unmistakably  to  show  that  pairing  has  al- 
ways been  the  typical  form  of  human  marriage"  (Howard's 
Hist.  Matri.  Instit,  vol.  I,  79-85).  Who  so  blind  as  not  to 
see  that  the  toleration  or  countenancing  of  polygamy,  on 
purely  scientific  ground,  is  thus  discredited?  Westermark 
enumerates  the  various  monogamous  tribes  and  nations,  but 
it  is  not  practicable  here  to  follow  up  this  suggestion  and 
reference. 

But  at  this  reduced  rate  there  still  remains  before  the  anti- 
polygamous  missionary  enterprises  of  the  world  a  stupendous 
problem. 


220 

The  conquest  of  the  Christian  church  is  not  by  direct  as- 
sault— not  by  the  unfurling  of  flags  and  banners.  ring 
of  drums  and  blare  of  trumpets,  the  boom  of  cannon  and  the 
shout  and  onrush  of  embattled  hosts — but  by  the  quiet 
persevering  and  uncompromising  spread  of  Christian  truths 
which  show   a  better  way   of   living  by  the  example   of 
individual  and  family  life,  whose  purity  and  peace  put  to 
shame  the  ways  of  sin  and  give  a  healthy  stimulus  and  im- 
pulse to  a  holy  obedience  to  the  MaMer's  voice.     It  is  by 
rounding  thi^  h«  ;nhen  encampment,  which  presents  a  fr< 
ing  front  so  ancient  and  defiant,  with  the  simple  blasts  of 
ram's  horns  and  prayer,  that  the  barriers  will  full  down  flat. 
and   not  by   yielding   or   romp-              in    one   jot    or   tittle. 
Great  moral  and  spiritual  conflicts  are  not  won  by  compro- 
mise, but  by  unyielding  adherence  by 
keeping  the  rhureh  of  Christ  absolutely  pure  and  free  of 
polygamy  that  it  can  most  effectually  contribute  to  its  over- 
throw. 

Remark  1.  The  tin  «»f  our  minimi  w«»rk  v  primarily  the 
x  ilvation  of  <ouls  from  sin,  and  not  in  <in  We  are  not  to 
Sftte  them  in,  but  from,  sin. 

2.  But  the  gospel  has  the  promise  of  the  life  that  now  is 
as  well  as  of  that  which  is  to  come.     And  as  exhibiting  the 
present  and  legitimate  fruit  of  the  gospel,  our  n  :dm 
at  an  improve*  1  condition  of  society  mainly  through  * 

ity  of  the  family  (I  Peter  iv:  16-19). 

3.  This  improved  outcome  must  be  found  primarily  in  the 
family.     Mr.   Robert  E.   Speer,  A.  M.    (Secretary  of  the 
Board  of  Foreign  Missions  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the 
Tnited  States  of  America),  made  a  brief  address  to  the  1900 
Missionary  Conference  so  admirable  that  I  feel  constrained 


221 

to  again  quote  from  it.  He  says:  "I  do  not  know  of  any 
question  that  is  of  more  importance  in  connection  with  the 
standards  of  conduct  than  the  question  of  admitting  polyg- 
amies, with  their  polygamy,  into  the  Christian  Church. 
What  guarantee  have  wa  that  polygamy  will  not  do  in  the 
Christian  Church  what  polygamy  does  outside  the  Christian 
Church?  Outside  the  Christian  Church  polygamy  destroys 
homes  and  makes  impossible  personal  purity.  Will  baptized 
polygamy  create  Christian  homes  and  promote  personal  pur- 
ity ?  I  do  not  believe  that  polygamy  can  be  kept  from  doing 
in  the  Christian  Church  that  which  polygamy  does  outside 
of  the  Christian  Church.  Why,  then,  should  it  be  let  in? 
People  say  because  of  the  hardships  which  the  exclusion 
of  polygamies  will  force  upon  them.  But  it  seems  to  me 
that  there  is  some  confusion  of  thought  there  as  to  what  it  is 
that  constitutes  polygamy.  The  financial  relationship  be- 
ween  a  man  and  certain  women  does  not  constitute  a  polyg- 
amous relationship.  If  a  man  has  wanted  to  support  finan- 
cially five  women  before  coming  into  the  Christian  Church, 
there  is  nothing  in  the  fact  of  his  baptism  that  makes  it  com- 
pulsory upon  him  to  stop  supporting  four  of  them.  *  *  * 
We  do  not  ask  a  man  who  comes  into  the  Christian  Church 
;  >{»  supporting  these  women.  We  do  not  ask  them  to 
cease  bearing  his  name,  but  we  do  insist  that  he  shall  cease 
living  in  that  relationship,  which  alone  constitutes  a  polyga- 
mous relationship,  with  these  women,  and  shall  confine  him- 
self to  a  proper  marriage  relationship  with  one  of  them." 
(Ecumenical  Missionary  Conference,  1900,  vol.  2,  286,  287.) 
4.  Our  religion  legitimately  ministers  to  freedom  from 
tyranny,  but  polygamy  is  adultery  and  a  sin  against  God 
and  man,  and  it  ministers  to  private  and  public  despotism 


222 

(Lieber,  Kent,  Matthews,  Waite).  Says  Ju<ls_v  Matthews: 
"The  union  of.one  man  and  one  woman  in  the  holy  state  of 
matrimony  is  the  (only)  sure  foundation  of  all  that  is  stable 
and  noble  in  our  Christian  civilization  and  the  best  guar: 
of  reverent  morality  and  the  beneficent  progress  of  social  and 
political  improvemnt."  Shall  we  in  America  venture  to 
take  out  the  keytsorie  of  the  arch  on  which  the  institutions  to 
spring  from  our  missions  are  are  to  rest?  This  would  be 
disastrous. 

5.  It  is  solemnly  the  duty  of  the  church  i<>  guar 
the  prostitution  of  the  gospel  by  this  degrading  apostacy 
from  the  original  conjugal  relation  in  Eden.     That  manog- 
amous  conjugal  relation  is  held  up  by  the  Savior  for 
observance  of  his  people  and  as  an  obligation  <>n  all  men  in 
all  time. 

The  alii;  :i    the   overture  to  the   enn-l'-mnation   of 

polygamy  as  a  crime  in  our  courts  has  been  vindicated.  The 
idea  of  our  toying  with  thi-  viper — this  cobra  capella — in- 
stead of  decapitating  it,  seems  inconceivable. 

The  claim  that  those  who  favor  the  admission  are  as  i 
opposed  to  polygamy  as  the  exclusionists,  may  be  safely  de- 
nied. If  you  harbor  a  polygamist  and  allow  him  to  indulge 
his  nefarious  practices  whilst  in  your  family,  and  with  your 
knowledge,  it  i-  in  vain  that  your  opposition  to  plural  cohab- 
itation is  avowed.  Do  you  tell  me  you  are  just  as  much  op- 
posed to  it  as  your  neighbors?  It  won't  be  accepted. 
You  admit  this  polygamous  sinner,  and  he  continues  his 
nefarious  practices  right  under  your  eyes,  and  with  his  con- 
cubines eats  bread  at  the  same  table  with  you.  Your  opj 
tion  is  compromised  (II  Cor.  vi:  14-18).  You  may  have 
persuaded  yourself  that  you  are  opposed,  but  it  is  self-decep- 
tion. Your  actions  speak  louder  than  your  words. 


.   223 

6.  Shall  we  as  a  church  admit  this  thing  to  our  commun- 
ion and  fellowship — the  purest  and  most  sacred  fellowship  on 
earth — that  fellowship  of  which  we  make  confession  and 
avowal  whenever  we  repeat  the  Apostle's  Creed,  in  the  words, 
"I  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost;  the  holy  catholic  church;  the 
communion  of  saints ;  the  forgiveness  of  sins;  the  resurrection 
of  the  body;  and  the  life  everlasting,  Amen"?  "Saints,  by 
profession,  are  bound  to  maintain  a  holy  fellowship  and  com- 
munion in  the  worship  of  God,  and  in  performing  such  other 
spiritual  services  as  tend  to  their  mutual  edification"  (C.  F., 
xxvi:  2),  as  also  in  relieving  each  other  in  outward  things, 
according  to  their  several  abilities  and  necessities.  Which 
communion,  as  God  offereth  opportunity,  is  to  be  extended 
unto  all  those  who,  in  every  place,  call  upon  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus"  (I  John  iii:  17).  I  repeat,  shall  we  as  a 
church  of  Christ  admit  to  this  holy  fellowship  men  and 
women  who  in  the  United  States  would  be  treated  as  crim- 
inals, and  by  the  courts  of  the  land  consigned  to  jail  and  the 
penitentiary?  We  know  enough  from  scripture  and  history, 
from  observation  and  experience  to  be  fully  aware  that  polyg- 
amy is  a  master  device  of  the  evil  one.  Its  enthronement  in 
the  family  gives  him  and  his  demons  their  chief  citadel.  In 
contemplation  of  the  terribly  licentious  consequences  to  Israel 
of  tempting  Jehovah  by  intercourse  with  demons,  the  apostle 
solemnly  avows  his  solicitude  lest  the  Corinthian  Christians 
should  fail  to  heed  the  warning:  "And  I  would  riot  that  ye 
should  have  communion  with  demons.  Ye  cannot  drink  the 
cup  of  the  Lord  and  the  cup  of  demons ;  ye  cannot  partake  of 
the  table  of  the  Lord  and  of  the  table  of  demons"  (I  Cor.  x: 
20,  21) .  It  is  a  case  of  intolerable  incompatibility. 

7.  The  home  church  will  lose  its  confidence  in  mission? 


224 

thus  conducted  and  in  the  men  conducting  them.  Indeed, 
we  are  told  that  it  is.  too  bad  that  this  subject  should  be  pub- 
licly agitated.  Christ  did  nothing  in  secret — for  one  I 
pledge  you  to  do  all  in  my  power,  as  long  as  God  spares  my 
life,  to  overthrow  this  apostate  and  wicked  practice,  and  to 
fortify  the  church  against  it. 

8.  The  rule  of  this  overture  agrees  with  the  greater  body  of 
must  efficient  missionary  workers.  It  agrees  with  the  coi 
tut  ion  of  our  own  church  and  with  the  word  of  God.  What 
more  could  be  asked?  It  wrongs  no  one  in  providing  for 
enforcing  the  abandonment  of  a  great  sin.  It  will  bless 
our  church  in  sympathetic  co-operation  with  the  leading 
missionary  churches,  and  the  overwhelming  majority  of 
the  people  of  God  whose  prayers  and  substantial  support 
are  in  this  world-wide  campaign.  "Be  ye  holy,  for  I  am 
h"l\-."  To  those  ensnared  among  these  wayward  trans- 
gressors the  Spirit  and  the  bride  say,  "Come  out  from  them 
and  be  ye  separate." 

TUB  CENTRAL  PRESBYTERIAN. 

In   The  Central  Presbyterian,  November  15,  1905,  page 
7.VJ.  •  found  an  editorial  by  Rev.  Dr.  James  f  iitor. 

relative  t<>  the  then  quite  recent  action  of  the  Synod  of  Vir- 
ginia on  the  overture  which  is  the  burden  of  this  pamphlet. 
I  will  now  close  by  u-ing  a  part  of  that  editorial  as  giving  the 
rondo rs  of  tin's  pamphlet  and  the  General  Assembly  the  ben- 
efit of  the  view<  of  one  of  the  most  venerable  and  highly  es- 
teemed members  of  the  Virginia  Synod,  and  one  of  the 
wisest  and  most  influential  counsellors  of  our  church  on  the 
subject  under  consideration.  I  am  sure  that  those  who  have 
had  occasion  to  wrestle  with  thn  -ubiect  will  thank  Dr. 


225 

Smith  for  his  clear  and  incisive  views.  I  hope  that  the  views 
of  Dr.  Summey,  in  the  S.  W.  Presbyterian,  given  at  the  open- 
ing of  this  discourse,  will  be  recalled  in  this  connection. 
And  I  feel  sorry  that  the  powerful  address  to  Synod  by  Dr. 
F.  J.  Brooke,  chairman  of  the  ad  interim  committee,  on  the 
purity  of  the  church,  whilst  this  matter  was  pending,  cannot 
be  given. 

The  extract  from  The  Central  Presbyterian  is  as  follows: 

"What  are  we  sending  to  the  people  that  live  in 
darkness?  What  are  we  trying  to  establish  in  the 
midst  of  the  gross  darkness  of  the  pagan  lands — in 
China,  Korea  and  Africa?  It  is  not  a  building,  nor 
a  book,  nor  a  ritual  of  worship,  nor  a  form  of  civiliza- 
tion with  clothes  and  houses,  but  a  life,  a  new  human 
life,  redeemed  and  renewed  and  sanctified  to  God 
through  the  Divine  Redeemer.  The  first  thing  we 
have  to  show  the  degraded  heathen  is  a  Christian  life, 
to  be  lived  out  before  their  eyes,  a  life  clean  and  loving 
and  consecrated.  It  is  shown  in  the  missionary  and 
in  his  home ;  and  his  relations  to  his  wife  and  his  child 
are  a  revelation  sent  by  God  to  the  poor  darkened 
heart.  And  the  same  things  are  to  be  shown  in  some 
degree  by  every  one  baptized  into  the  name  of  Christ. 
The  missionary  is  to  be  the  image  and  message  of 
Christ,  and  every  convert  is  to  be  called  Christian, 
and  in  his  own  poor  and  imperfect  way,  "a  living 
epistle,  known  and  read  of  all  men."  The  missionary 
and  his  convert  are  and  must  be  the  samples  and  illus- 
trations of  the  Christianity  we  hope  to  establish  in  the 
dark  places.  For  hundreds  of  miles  around  among  a 
multitude  of  ignorant  and  degraded  beings,  all  that 
is  known  of  the  Christian  religion  is  what  they  see 
and  hear  of  the  missionary  and  his  converts  at  the 
station. 

"Shall  we  consent  that  the  lie  be  spoken  among 

15 


226 

those  who  exhibit  our  religion  in  the  heathen  land? 
Shall  a  man  living  in  the  habit  of  falsehood,  openly, 
before  all  men,  be  baptized  and  made  an  example  of 
the  strange  religion  that  has  been  brought  by  the 
white  man?  Will  that  man  be  an  example  and  a  les- 
son of  what  we  are  sending?  Will  that  man  be  an 
influence  for  the  extension  of  the  kingdom  of  our 
Christ?  It  must  be  admitted  that  church  members 
in  Christian  lands  have  been  known  to  lie.  But  we 
do  not  set  them  forth  as  examples,  and  especially  when 
we  know  that  a  man  is  a  liar,  we  do  not  baptize  him 
and  give  him  the  name  of  Christ.  In  the  heathen 
land  where  our  religion  is  not  known,  all  the  more  we 
would  not  I-  ior;  neither  the  liar  nor 

thii-f.  nor  the  drunkard  nor  the  impure  will  we  seal 
with  haptiMii  and  set  him  up  in  a  dark  land  as  an  ex- 
ample of  Christianity. 

''Can  a  man  living  in  polygamy  be  an  illustration 
of  the  Christian  religion''     Polygamy  is  one  of 
gross  evils  of  pagandom,  from  which  we  go  to  del 
We  go  to  China  and  Africa,  not  to  compromise  with 
evil,  but  to  teach  and  illustrate  and  invite  to  a  more 
excellent  way.    One  of  the  inestimable  blessings  whit -h 
belongs  to  the  very  substance  of  our  religion  is  the  law 
of  marriage,  established  in  a  sinless  Eden  and  keeping 
about  it  nearly  all  there  is  of  Eden  in  a  fallen  w 
We  cannot  see  how  our  religion  can  be  exhibited  in  .a 
pagan  land  without  the  testimony  borne  to  the  scrip 
tural  law  of  marriage  and  the  purity  and  happiness 
of  the  Christian  home. 

"It  is  not  a  question  as  to  our  charitable  treatment 
of  the  native  convert,  who  is  in  many  ways  entangled 
in  the  evils  of  his  heathen  life.  All  charity,  all  O 
tian  helpfulness  must  be  given  to  the  man  slowly 
emerging  from  the  bondage  of  pagandom.  But  we 
cannot  think  that  the  native,  living  in  polygamy, 


227 

unable  to  shake  off  the  things  of  his  old  life,  is  the 
man  to  be  baptized  and  to  be  set  forth  before  all  eyes 
in  the  dark  land  as  an  example  and  guide  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion. 

"Let  our  Assembly  say  distinctly,  without  censure 
on  the  past,  that  our  missions  are  instructed  to  ivith- 
hold,  not  charity  nor  helpfulness  of  any  kind,  but 
baptism  and  church  membership  from  the  polygamist, 
until  he  can  be  free  to  be  an  example  of  the  Christian 
life." 

As  a  last  word,  I  submit  the  solemn  query : 
Had  we  not  better  abandon  our  missionary  work  of  estab- 
lishing  impure  churches  than  to  pursue  our  voyage  with  this 
.Jonah,  as  a  passenger  or  stowaway,  on  board  the  old  Ship  of 
Zion? 

The  storm  is  already  brewing. 

SAMUEL  SPAHR  LAWS, 
Washington,  D.  C.,  1733  Q  Street,  Northwest 

MAY  1.  1906. 


